Summary
and Key Recommendations

Since 2008, the government of Azerbaijan has undertaken a
sweeping program of urban renewal in Baku, the capital of this oil-rich country
in the South Caucasus. In the course of this program, the authorities have
illegally expropriated hundreds of properties, primarily apartments and homes
in middle-class neighborhoods, to be demolished to make way for parks, roads, a
shopping center, and luxury residential buildings. The government has forcibly
evicted homeowners, often without warning or in the middle of the night, and at
times in clear disregard for residents’ health and safety, in order to
demolish their homes. It has refused to provide homeowners fair compensation
based on the market values of properties, many of which are in highly-desirable
locations and neighborhoods.

This report, based on interviews with affected homeowners
and residents, documents human rights violations committed in the course of the
government’s expropriations, forced evictions, and demolitions in four
neighborhoods of Baku. These neighborhoods have typically been home to middle
class Azerbaijanis: teachers, librarians, medical doctors, military officers,
and others, some of whom have inherited their homes from their parents and
others who managed to save and buy apartments in desirable locations. The human
rights violations documented by Human Rights Watch relate to the process by
which homes and properties were slated for expropriation and compensation was
assessed, the manner in which expropriations, evictions, and demolitions were
implemented, and the lack of any effective legal recourse or remedy available
to those whose rights were violated.

One of the four neighborhoods described in this report is
Bayil, the seaside location of the National Flag Square and the Baku Crystal
Hall, the venue for the May 2012 Eurovision Song Contest. The government’s
ambitious plans to develop this area intensified after May 2011, when
Azerbaijan won the contest and therefore became host to the 2012 event. The
Eurovision Song Contest is an annual televised competition featuring music acts
from 56 countries in and around Europe. For the government of Azerbaijan, the
visibility of the event provides an opportunity to showcase Baku to thousands
of visitors and millions of television viewers.

The main venue for the contest will be the Baku Crystal
Hall, a modern, glass-encased arena overlooking the Caspian Sea. The government
has also stepped up work on other, previously planned projects in the immediate
vicinity, including extending a waterfront promenade that begins in the city
center; extending and widening a road parallel to the coast; and creating a
park on the opposite side of the National Flag Square from where the Baku
Crystal Hall is being built. In order to clear land for construction of the
road and the park, the government has forcibly evicted several hundred residents
from the Bayil neighborhood.

The United Nations Committee on Economic, Social, and
Cultural Rights considers forced evictions to be the “permanent or
temporary removal against their will of individuals, families and/or
communities from the homes and/or land which they occupy, without the provision
of, and access to, appropriate forms of legal or other protection.” Evictions
and expropriations may be lawful when they are conducted in exceptional
circumstances, and in full accordance with relevant provisions of international
human rights and humanitarian law. Forced evictions are prohibited under
Azerbaijani and international law.

The Baku City Executive Authority and the Azerbaijan State
Committee on Property oversee the expropriations and forced evictions
documented in this report. Once the authorities have identified a property for
expropriation and demolition, the government typically offers monetary
compensation or resettlement to the residents. However, not all homeowners
receive compensation or resettlement offers or accept the government’s
offers. They therefore remain in their homes. When the authorities arrive to
demolish the homes, they forcibly evict the remaining homeowners and their
families.

The authorities often carry out evictions and demolitions with
willful disregard for the dignity, health, and safety of homeowners and
residents. In at least 24 cases documented by Human Rights Watch, the
authorities have dismantled from the inside apartment buildings or houses in
which families and individuals continue to live, including by removing roofs,
doors, windows, and stairwell banisters, and damaging shared walls. This often
exposes residents to the elements and to the risk of partial collapse of
buildings. In many cases, the authorities have also cut water, sewer, electricity,
gas, or telephone lines while homeowners remained in their homes. These actions
also render the properties uninhabitable, ultimately compelling the residents
and homeowners to move out and accept unfair compensation offers.

When Viktor Karmanov, a retired military officer, and his
wife Iveta learned in July 2011 that their building next to the National Flag
Square, where they had lived for 20 years, would be demolished, they were not
satisfied with the compensation offer and contacted the authorities, hoping to
negotiate a better sale price. However, a little over a month later, the
authorities had destroyed much of the building, including the roof, and in late
September they cut the electricity and phone lines.

“We did not want to sell our apartment,” Iveta
explained. “But we have to sell now because it’s impossible to live
here anymore. They broke down the roof so when it starts raining outside, it
rains in our apartment too. … We begged them to at least leave the roof
over our heads until we find someplace else to live, but they refused.”

In some cases, the authorities have forcibly evicted
residents with little or no notice immediately prior to demolishing their
houses or the apartment buildings. In some cases, large numbers of police and
other government officials would surround the buildings and fill the stairwells
before forcibly entering apartments and removing residents by force. In at
least two cases, officials arrived without warning with a bulldozer and other
machinery at night or in pre-dawn hours and began actively demolishing homes
after telling homeowners to vacate immediately. In all of these cases,
homeowners had a few hours or less to remove their personal belongings and
valuables.

For example, without warning the authorities forcibly evicted
Arzu Adigezalova, 41, a math teacher and a single mother of two young children,
from her apartment next to the National Flag Square in the pre-dawn hours of
October 29, 2011. Adigezalova had agreed to the forced sale of her apartment
two weeks previously but had not yet found another place to live. She told
Human Rights Watch:

I woke up because the building was shaking and I could hear
something like thunder. I took the kids and went outside. [I went up to] the
official in charge and asked him to give us time to take our belongings out. He
looked at me and said, ‘Ok,’ but then in the next moment said to
the bulldozer driver, ‘Break it down!!’

Adigezalova frantically tried to collect her belongings and
take them out of the building. She lost many of her household goods and much of
her furniture.

In three cases documented by Human Rights Watch police
escalated the evictions process by detaining homeowners in a police station
following their eviction while the authorities demolished the apartment
building.

For example, in December 2010 police forcibly evicted and
detained 42-year-old Perviz Emirov, a retired soldier who was wounded while
serving in the military and receives a disability pension, Emirov’s wife,
and their three school-age children from their small one-room apartment in the
neighborhood near Baku’s Old City. Emirov described the eviction to Human
Rights Watch:

About four or five police officers broke down the door. ...
I only had time to grab our identity documents and the little bit of money that
I had at home, nothing else. They put me, my wife, and my daughter in the
police car and took us to the police station. About 30 minutes later our twin
boys came home from school . . . . Then the police brought them to the station
as well. They let us go after about five hours. When we got our home, we
couldn’t believe our eyes. Everything was destroyed. To this day I
don’t know where our belongings are.

As part of the demolition process, workers typically remove
furniture, household goods, and other personal property, placing items on the
street or in some cases taking them to a warehouse for owners to recover later.
Property owners complained that many of their belongings were damaged,
destroyed, or lost during the evictions. Some homeowners were unable to recover
personal property that remained in the building as it was demolished.

Dozens of homeowners filed complaints with the courts, but
the authorities’ repeated failure to appear for hearings has caused these
proceedings to be delayed for months at a time. In several cases the
authorities have demolished homes in violation of court injunctions prohibiting
demolition or while court cases challenging the intended demolitions were
pending.

When governments
expropriate private property for state needs, they must provide a fair and
transparent process for compensation that reflects market value of the property
as well as compensation for relocation and other expenses. However, the
Azerbaijani authorities have offered some homeowners, typically those with
homes smaller than 60 square meters, monetary compensation at a single,
government-fixed rate of 1,500 manat (US$1,900) per square meter, without
regard to the property’s location, age, condition, use, or any other
factors. Homeowners were not
aware of any independent appraisals of their homes ordered by the government,
and the government has not responded to several inquiries by Human Rights Watch
as to whether it conducted independent appraisals of homes.

For owners of homes larger than 60 square meters, the
government offers homeowners resettlement to apartments built in high rises,
typically outside of the city center. However, it does not give them ownership
title to these apartments prior to their relocation, instead promising
ownership at a later, unspecified date. In addition, photographic evidence and
testimony from those living or expected to live in the new apartments indicate
that the quality of at least some the apartments, and the buildings themselves,
is low and possibly in violation of building code standards. Problems include
standing water in the basement, cracks in walls, including load bearing walls,
unfinished windows, and peeling and damaged floors.

Some homeowners described to Human Rights Watch an
atmosphere of intimidation and uncertainty when interacting with government
officials regarding the expropriation and demolition of their homes. Some
government officials have threatened homeowners who challenge the
government’s actions or refuse to readily accept the government’s
compensation offers.

The government’s campaign of expropriations,
evictions, and demolitions of homes and other property in Baku has no basis in
national law, which provides that the government may only expropriate property
in limited circumstances for state needs, with a court order, and by purchasing
the properties at market prices. The government’s actions also violate
Azerbaijan’s international human rights obligations, including its obligations
under the European Convention on Human Rights, to protect private property and
private and family life. In some cases of forced eviction, the
government’s actions, including serious disregard for the welfare and
property of evictees, may rise to a level of severity so as to constitute
inhuman and degrading treatment.

The Azerbaijani authorities should halt all further
evictions, expropriations, and demolitions until they can be carried out in a fair
and transparent manner and are consistent with Azerbaijani national law and
international human rights law. The government should also ensure that any
future evictions of homeowners who refuse to leave their properties are carried
out with full respect for the safety and dignity of those evicted. Compensation
for expropriated properties should be fair and based on the market value of
each property, determined by an independent appraisal.

Azerbaijan’s international partners, including key
governments and multilateral development banks, should insist that the
government stop its campaign of expropriation and evictions and ensure that any
future actions respect national and international law. Azerbaijan’s
international partners also should call on the government to urgently establish
a fair and transparent mechanism to resolve the complaints of evicted
homeowners and residents and to reassess the compensation offered to those who
lost their homes and possessions. The European Union and United States have an additional
important role to play in continuing to support nongovernmental organizations
and other groups in Azerbaijan that are documenting human rights abuses in the
context of the government’s expropriations and evictions.

Other actors also should speak out
to press for an end to forced evictions and related abuses until they can be
done in a legal and fair manner and for a remedy for those already affected. Irrespective
of the fact that the Eurovision Song Contest is a cultural, not a political,
event, the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), which oversees the contest, should
make clear to the government that the serious violations of human rights that
are taking place in relation to families, homes, and properties near the
contest venue risks casting a shadow over the contest. Citing their mutual
interest in holding a successful event not marred by human rights abuses, the
European Broadcasting Union should urge the government to quickly and fairly
resolve all complaints related to expropriations, evictions, and demolitions
near the Baku Crystal Hall.

Key Recommendations

To the Government of Azerbaijan,
including the Baku City Executive Authority and the State Committee on Property

Halt all further expropriations, evictions,
and demolitions until they can be carried out in a fair and transparent manner
and are consistent with Azerbaijani national law and international human rights
law.

Any future evictions of homeowners who
refuse to leave their properties should only be conducted in accordance with
Azerbaijani and international law. Any evictions should be regulated by a court
order and conducted with full respect for the bodily integrity and dignity of
those evicted. The authorities should in no circumstances begin to demolish or
disassemble buildings in which people continue to live.

Reassess the compensation offered to those
who lost their homes and possessions.

Ensure protection of all private property
when carrying out evictions and demolitions.

Provide homeowners and property owners who
may lose their property for development with clear information about the legal
basis for the expropriation, the timing of the expropriation, their
compensation and resettlement options, and the means of appealing decisions.
This information should be provided in a timely manner.

Provide all property owners affected by
expropriation access to an effective complaint mechanism that addresses
grievances in a clear and transparent manner and a remedy.

Ensure that mechanisms to provide property
owners with compensation for expropriated property are fair and transparent,
with a clear basis in law.

To the Prosecutor
General’s Office of Azerbaijan

Initiate an independent inquiry into why the
expropriations and demolitions in central Baku have been allowed to take place
in the manner described in this report given that they clearly violate Azerbaijan's
constitution and national laws and international human rights law.

To the European Broadcasting
Union

Call on the government of Azerbaijan to
quickly and fairly resolve all complaints related to expropriations, evictions,
and demolitions near the Baku Crystal Hall.

Call on the Azerbaijani authorities to
ensure that no further human rights abuses take place with respect to
Azerbaijan’s preparation to host the Eurovision Song Contest, including
in the vicinity of the Baku Crystal Hall.

To the European Broadcasting
Union Members

Call on the EBU, including the Eurovision
Reference Group, to make clear with the Azerbaijani authorities that expropriations,
evictions, and demolitions near the Baku Crystal Hall risk casting a shadow
over the Eurovision Song Contest and should be halted.

To Azerbaijan’s Bilateral
Partners, including the European Union, individual European States, and the
United States

Insist that the Azerbaijani authorities halt
all further expropriations, evictions, and demolitions until they can be
carried out in a fair and transparent manner and are consistent with
Azerbaijani national law and Azerbaijan’s international human rights
obligations.

Make
Azerbaijan’s addressing these concerns an explicit requirement in the
context of enhanced relations, including through the Association Agreements
with the EU and in the context of deepening engagement with and assistance from
the US.

Methodology

In June 2011, Human Rights Watch began preliminary research
to examine the government’s campaign of expropriations, evictions, and
house demolitions in Baku through a number of telephone interviews with
victims, a lawyer, and human rights defenders in Baku. Subsequently, Human
Rights Watch undertook research trips to Baku in June, September, and December
2011 and in January 2012 to interview property owners and other residents,
lawyers, and NGO representatives in Baku.

Human Rights Watch interviewed a total of 67 people for this
report. We interviewed 52 people subject to expropriations, forced evictions,
and house demolitions, who were living or who had lived in four areas in Baku. Some
individuals were interviewed twice or three times in order to document the most
recent events related to the expropriation, eviction from, and demolition of their
homes.

The locations in which Human Rights Watch documented abuses
are:

in a
group of streets located behind the Heydar Aliyev Hall, bounded by Samed
Vurghun, Fuzuli, Topchubashov, and Mirzagha Aliyev streets north of the
historic Old Town;

on Azadlyq Avenue near Ziya Bunyadov Street
to the north of the city center, across from the presidential residence;

on Neftchilar Avenue, in the city center, to
the southwest of the historic Old Town, across the street from a well-known
sports arena;

and in the Bayil neighborhood, at the base
of a peninsula next to the National Flag Square, south of the city center.

The findings of this report relate to these four areas only.
Although expropriations and house demolitions have taken place in other areas
in the city and in other parts of Azerbaijan, Human Rights Watch is not in a
position to assess the conditions and terms on which those precise expropriations
took place.

Telephone and in-person interviews with victims were
conducted in Russian by three Human Rights Watch researchers fluent in Russian
and a consultant to Human Rights Watch fluent in Russian. Some interviews were
conducted in Azeri, during which a translator for Human Rights Watch (a native
speaker of Azeri) translated into English or Russian. An intern for Human
Rights Watch conducted several telephone interviews with interviewees
previously interviewed to get updated information.

In most cases victims and other interviewees were
interviewed individually, in private. In a few cases married couples were
interviewed together. Interviewees were offered no incentives for speaking with
us. Human Rights Watch made no promises of personal service or benefit to those
whom we interviewed for this report and told all interviewees that the
interviews were completely voluntary and confidential.

Some individuals interviewed for this report said they
feared possible retaliation from government officials for speaking with us. At
their request, we have changed their names in the report. Pseudonyms appear throughout
as a first name and an initial.

We also interviewed seven lawyers representing victims of
illegal house expropriations, forced evictions, and demolitions. We met with
representatives from the Public
Association for Assistance to Free Economy, the Institute for Peace and
Democracy, the Legal Education Society, the Association for the Protection of
Women’s Rights in Azerbaijan, the Azerbaijan Human Rights Center, the
Institute for Reporters’ Freedoms and Safety, the Human Rights Club and
other local nongovernmental organizations working on property rights in
Azerbaijan.

In June 2011 and
September 2011, Human Rights Watch sent letters to Azerbaijani President Ilham
Aliyev and the Baku City Executive Authority expressing concern and requesting
information about illegal expropriation, forced evictions, and house
demolitions. On November 25, 2011, Human Rights Watch received a letter in
response from the Baku City Executive Authority. Their response is reflected in
the relevant sections of this report.

In December 2011, Human Rights Watch sent an additional
letter to the Baku City Executive Authority and letters to the Ministry of
Finance and the State Committee on Property. As this report went to
publication, Human Rights Watch had not received responses from government
agencies or the president’s office, except for the November 2011 letter. We
requested meetings with the Baku City Executive Authority in December 2011 and
in January 2012 but received no reply to our requests.

In September 2011, Human Rights Watch sent a letter to the
European Broadcasting Union (EBU) regarding concerns about selected human
rights abuses Azerbaijan, including forced evictions and home demolitions
linked to the government’s preparations for hosting the Eurovision Song Contest,
as well as violations of freedom of expression and other human rights
violations relevant to the EBU’s mandate.

The EBU responded with a letter to Human Rights Watch on
November 10, 2011. An EBU representative met with Human Rights Watch in New York
in November 2011. Human Rights Watch sent a second letter to the EBU on
December 30, 2011. The EBU responded with a letter to Human Rights Watch on
January 19, 2012. An EBU representative met with Human Rights Watch on January
25, 2012. The results of these meetings and correspondence are detailed in this
report in the relevant sections.

I. Background

Azerbaijan’s
Political Landscape

Azerbaijan is an oil-rich country located in the South
Caucasus, with a population of 8.3 million.[1]Since gaining independence from the Soviet Union in 1991, Azerbaijan has
had a poor human rights record and an increasingly entrenched, authoritarian
political elite.Many hoped that the October 2003 election of President
Ilham Aliyev–who took over after his now-deceased father, Heydar, who had
held the office since 1993–would mark a new era of democracy and respect
for human rights.[2] However, vote fraud,
police violence, and intimidation of opposition supporters and others marred
national polls in 2003 and in 2005.[3] Aliyev
was re-elected in October 2008, but the opposition boycotted the vote and the
elections failed to meet Azerbaijan’s international commitments.[4]
In February 2009, a popular referendum initiated by Aliyev amended the
country’s constitution to remove the two-term limit on the presidency.[5]
In November 2010, international observers again found that the country’s
parliamentary elections were marred by media restrictions, the misuse of
administrative resources, and an inequitable candidate registration process.[6]

Azerbaijan’s judiciary depends heavily on the
executive and fails to provide effective recourse against violations of basic
rights.[7]
Trial monitoring by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe
(OSCE) found that trials regularly violate “the right to effective legal
representation, the right to an impartial and independent tribunal, the right
to a fair hearing, the right to assistance by an interpreter, and the right to
a reasoned judgment.”[8]
The ruling Yeni Azerbaijan Party (YAP) dominates the parliament (Milli Mejlis),
which does not provide a check on executive power and largely serves to pass
legislation proposed by the government.[9]

Corruption is endemic to government institutions and public
interactions with government.[10]
For example, a 2009 survey by the International Finance Corporation and the
World Bank revealed that 52.2 percent of firms operating in Azerbaijan expected
to give “gifts” to public officials to “get things
done,” more than double the regional average. Seventy-one percent of
firms expected to give gifts to get a construction permit, nearly three times
the regional average.[11]

The government severely limits the rights to freedom of
expression and assembly.[12]
Officials regularly deny requests by opposition parties and others to hold
demonstrations. Police quickly and often violently disperse unauthorized
protests and arbitrarily detain participants. In 2011, when activists inspired
by the uprisings in the Middle East launched protests in Azerbaijan, the
government responded by arresting hundreds of protesters, activists, and
journalists between March and May 2011.[13] Several of those
arrested were convicted and imprisoned for up to three years.[14]

Hydrocarbon Wealth and Construction Boom

Azerbaijan’s hydrocarbon windfalls have helped to
trigger a construction boom in Baku. In the last decade, Azerbaijan has
experienced tremendous economic growth fueled by oil and gas exports. According
to the World Bank, Azerbaijan’s Gross Domestic Product increased nearly
10 fold in less than a decade, growing from US$5.7 billion in 2001 to US$51.1
billion in 2010.[15]
Azerbaijan is the twenty-second largest oil-producing country in the world and
the third-largest oil producer in Eurasia, after Russia and Kazakhstan.[16]
Azerbaijan produced just over one million barrels per day in 2010.[17]
Azerbaijan is also the twenty-ninth largest producer of natural gas in the
world.[18]
So critical is the energy sector to Azerbaijan’s economy that, according
to a 2010 International Monetary Fund (IMF) report, non-oil and gas exports at
that time accounted for only five percent of total exports.[19] In
its 2011 assessment, the IMF estimates that Azerbaijan’s hydrocarbon revenues
will begin to decline after 2018.[20]
The IMF has repeatedly pressed Azerbaijan to develop its non-oil economy and
has said improvements in the business climate are crucial to sustained economic
health.[21]

Given Azerbaijan’s current high per capita income, the
country is no longer eligible for deeply discounted loans from international
financial institutions designed for poor countries. Although Azerbaijan’s
most recent IMF loan expired by 2005,[22]
the IMF has remained engaged with Azerbaijan to offer policy advice. The World
Bank’s loans to Azerbaijan, under a program for middle-income countries,
were anticipated to reach US$300 million in the 2011-2012 fiscal year, while
the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development invested US$79 million in
projects in the country in 2010.[23]

Azerbaijan is a member of the Extractive Industries
Transparency Initiative (EITI), an international effort established in 2002 to
improve transparency and governance in oil, gas, and mining. The central
requirement of the initiative is that members—governments and the
extractive industries in their countries—publish company payments and
government revenues.[24]
In 2009, Azerbaijan met a variety of criteria regarding revenue disclosure and
in so doing was the first country to be declared “EITI compliant.”[25]
Although Azerbaijan has filed regular and frequent reports to EITI, domestic
civil society representatives that joined the process in 2010 have expressed
concern that implementation of EITI has stagnated.[26] Their
inability to secure improvements without the consent of the government and
companies highlights one set of limits on the EITI as a mechanism for ensuring
accountability.

More generally, Azerbaijan’s EITI membership only
relates to the transparency of government income. EITI does not address how
governments spend the money earned, nor whether they are transparent to their
citizens about budgets and expenditures, so it cannot be used to monitor
corruption or assess whether the funds from extractive industries are used to
benefit the public.

This report does not address whether the extensive
redevelopment of Baku is an appropriate government priority or examine whether
specific construction projects are in the public interest.[27]

Eurovision Song Contest and Related Construction

The Eurovision Song Contest is an annual televised
competition featuring one pop music competitor from each of 56 countries in and
around Europe.[28]
An estimated 125 million people watch the contest on television each year,[29]
making it a major European cultural phenomenon.[30]

According to the contest’s
rules, the winning act’s home country becomes the host for the next
year’s event.[31] Thus, Azerbaijan became the
host of the 2012 contest when its competitor, Ell & Nikki, won the
competition in May 2011.[32] President Aliyev called the
victory “a great success of the Azerbaijani state and people.”[33]
The state-owned broadcaster in charge of producing the event in the
host-country is Azerbaijan’s Ictimai TV.[34]

After winning the competition in 2011, senior government
officials stated their desire to host the high-profile event in a brand-new
venue, contingent only on whether construction could be completed in time. For
example, in May 2011 shortly after the win, President Ilham Aliyev’s
daughter, Leyla Aliyev, writing an editorial in a local magazine, described the
construction in Baku ahead of the Eurovision as including a new complex for the
song contest that would be “unlike anything before seen,” with
“an amazing seaside panorama.”[35] Later
in the year Azerbaijani media quoted Youth and Sport Minister Azad Rahimov as
declaring: “The [Baku] Crystal Palace is under construction and I hope it
will be ready by the contest and surprise the European community.”[36]

Consistent with this aim, work on the Baku Crystal Hall has
proceeded at a quick pace.[37]
In September 2011, a construction firm announced that it was building a “sports
and concert complex” to accommodate some 25,000 spectators.[38]
By early 2012 the roof had been installed on the arena, located near the end of
a small peninsula jutting out into the Caspian Sea just east of the imposing National
Flag Square, a vast, raised paved square home to a 162 meter flag pole.[39]

During this
same period, the government has moved to clear homes and apartment buildings
from the residential area at the base of the peninsula on the opposite side of
the National Flag Square. The government demolished homes in that
area to make way for the extension of a coastal road and also, just across from
the National Flag Square, for a park, as suggested by a 2011 government
document ordering beautification and greening in the area, as well as the size
of the space and that new trees have been planted in the area.[40] Given its location and the timing of its construction, the new road
seems likely to provide an important access route the area for large numbers of
people attending the Eurovision Song Contest at Baku Crystal Hall; similarly
the park will presumably serve as a scenic vista and entry point for visitors
approaching National Flag Square and the Baku Crystal Hall for the that event,
as well as functioning as a public space in the future.

On January 26, the reference
group of the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), which governs the Eurovision
Song Contest, announced that it had approved the Baku Crystal Hall for the
contest. Human Rights Watch has corresponded with and met with representatives
of the EBU regarding concerns about
government abuses in the Bayil neighborhood and other issues. (See below, the
Role of Azerbaijan’s International Partners.)

As the issue gained foreign media
attention—and with the EBU itself confirming that it sought
explanations from the Azerbaijan government[41]—the
authorities responded by attempting to de-link the evictions and demolitions from
its preparations for the Eurovision Song Contest.

For example, in January 2012 the
Azerbaijani media quoted Ali Hasanov, director of the public and political
department at the Azerbaijani Presidential Administration, as saying that the
construction in several parts of Baku as well as in the Bayil neighborhood was related
to “infrastructure,
roads and other transportation projects, as well as the extension of [the] Baku
Boulevard [an extensive promenade running along the seafront]” and
“not related to Eurovision.”[42]

The road construction that runs through the neighborhood
where evictions took place was planned before Azerbaijan won the Eurovision
Song Contest in 2011, and residents in at least one building in the area
learned that their building would eventually be demolished as early as February
2010 to make way for a park. However the pace of government actions to clear the
land demonstrably quickened after Azerbaijan won the contest as the authorities
accelerated efforts to complete the Baku Crystal Hall and related road
infrastructure in time for the May 2012 contest. This is evidenced in the
timing of one of the Baku City Executive Authority orders
regulating evictions in the area (dated May 31, 2011), the rapid pace of
evictions from September 2011- early 2012, as the government rushed to clear
the area for construction of the extended coastal road, and statements by government
officials linking construction in the area to preparations for the Eurovision
Song Contest, as noted above.

II. Development,
Expropriations, and Human Rights

The desire and policy of the Azerbaijan government to
develop its capital and improve infrastructure and public works is a legitimate
government mandate. Human rights law recognizes that rights to property,
including house and home, may be subject to
interference by the state in the interest of the common good, such as for
purposes of development. However, such state interference with private property
is lawful only if it takes place in accordance with a number of conditions:
that the interference is in the public
interest, that it is not arbitrary, that it follows
due process and is conducted in
accordance with appropriate legal provisions, and that it complies with
principles of international law such as the provision of fair compensation.[43]

As a party to the European
Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Azerbaijan has clear and binding treaty
obligations to respect the right to property, the home, and family and ensure
access to a remedy in any process of expropriation.[44]
The obligation is on the authorities to strike a ‘fair balance' between
the demands of the public interest and the protection of the individual's
fundamental rights.

Azerbaijan’s
national law reflects these obligations. The constitution of Azerbaijan protects property from expropriation
except by court decision and provides that property owners must be fairly
compensated based on the value of the property.[45] There is also a law on expropriation of land for
state needs that allows expropriation only when required by the state for a
limited number of purposes.[46] The law also requires a decision of the Cabinet
of Ministers,that notice of at least one year be given to tenants
prior to expropriation, and that the state provide compensation at market
value, among other costs.[47]

The Azerbaijan government
therefore has options to lawfully expropriate such property that it can justify
on development grounds, although for projects that are intended to be complete
by May 2012, the legal process for expropriation would have had to commence
significantly earlier than May 2011.

Human Rights Watch has documented human rights violations at
every stage of the government’s “development” campaign, including
in the process by which the authorities identified homes and properties for
expropriation, notified homeowners and residents of impending expropriations
and demolitions, and assessed and awarded compensation, as well as in the
manner in which expropriations, evictions, and demolitions were executed. Irrespective
of any lawful basis for the expropriations, the government’s conduct
during the expropriation and evictions processes was abusive, and those whose
rights were affected have had no effective legal recourse or access to a remedy.

III.Forced Evictions and Demolitions of Homes in
Central Baku

Human Rights Watch interviewed 52 homeowners who faced
abuses in the course of the government’s campaign of expropriations,
evictions, and demolitions in central Baku.

While the experience of those homeowners in central Baku
whom the authorities have forcibly evicted varied, it followed a basic pattern.
Some of the homeowners learned that their homes would be expropriated when
officials from the municipal housing authorities visited them and explained
orally or through a written notice that their property would be demolished and
that they should visit the resettlement commission established by the Baku City
Executive Authority to discuss compensation. The written notices that Human
Rights Watch saw were printed on blank paper with no letterhead, or, with some
exceptions, stamps and signatures, and typically delivered to people by hand.
Other property owners told Human Rights Watch that they received no official
notification of impending expropriation or demolition but learned through
rumors from neighbors or after seeing that neighboring or nearby properties
were being demolished.

Once they had learned of the impending actions against their
properties, homeowners could visit the resettlement commission, which consists
of a representative of the Baku City Executive Authority and a representative
of the State Committee on Property. The resettlement commission would present
the government’s compensation offers. Typically, for apartments smaller
than 60 square meters, homeowners were offered monetary compensation, based on
a flat rate per square meter determined by the government. The authorities usually
offered owners of homes larger than 60 square meters new apartments outside of
the city center. But, they did not give homeowners immediate title to the new
apartments—instead promising ownership titles at a later date—thereby
potentially stripping them of their ownership rights. In some cases, the
authorities called or visited residents to discuss compensation offers.

Some property owners accepted the government’s
compensation offers, vacated their houses or apartments, and resettled in other
homes—either those provided by the government or ones that they bought
or, most typically, rented, using the compensation money awarded to them. In several cases documented by Human Rights Watch the government
provided one month’s rent for temporary housing while evicted homeowners
searched for a new permanent home.[48]Others remained
in their homes because they refused the compensation offers or never received
official compensation offers.

Some homeowners faced forced eviction immediately prior to
the total demolition of their homes, with little or no warning. Their
possessions were often forcibly removed, damaged, destroyed, or lost in the
process. In other cases government representatives cut off water, electricity,
and other services and began to partially demolish buildings in which residents
continued to live. In two cases documented by Human Rights Watch, police
detained homeowners and their families while government workers removed
household goods and personal belongings and then demolished their homes.

Forced
Evictions Immediately Prior to Demolitions

Irrespective of the legality of any
expropriations, Human Rights Watch documented numerous cases in which the
manner of forced evictions and demolitions was highly abusive, could never be
justified as a proportionate measure, and violated the rights of the
homeowners, families, and occupants.

Bayil Neighborhood

In December 2011, Human Rights Watch interviewed four
families who had been forcibly evicted from their homes in the Bayil
neighborhood next to the National Flag Square in September, October, and
November 2011 in order for their homes and the buildings in which their
apartments were located to be demolished. These residences, located at the base
of a small peninsula, have been demolished to allow for the extension of a
coastal road and creation of a park along one side of the National Flag Square.
As noted above, the Azerbaijani authorities are working to complete
construction of a large arena, the Baku Crystal Hall, on the opposite side of
National Flag Square, in order to use it as the venue for the May 2012
Eurovision Song Contest. The planned new park in the Bayil neighborhood will thus
presumably serve as an entry point to the new arena.

Arzu Adigezalova, 41, a math teacher and a single mother of
two children, ages 9 and 6, lived in a two-room apartment at 3 Elchin and Vugar
Gajibabaeva Street which the authorities demolished in October 2011. She had
learned in June 2011 that the building would eventually be demolished and soon
thereafter workers began dismantling the building. Adigezalova told Human
Rights Watch:

I lived on the second floor. My neighbors above me had
moved, and workers had already demolished their apartments. In early September
2011, the workers broke through my ceiling, and the chandelier fell. Then my
balcony collapsed. The workers would throw heavy building materials down to the
ground. It was dangerous. Once, a large stone almost fell on my child’s
head. On September 9, I called the police and they came, and they took a statement
from me, but nothing happened. On September 13, I called the Emergencies
Ministry, but they did nothing.[49]

Adigezalova told Human Rights Watch that on October 11 she
agreed to the government’s compensation offer, but was still looking for
a place to live. She described how the authorities forcibly evicted her just
over two weeks later:

On [October] 29, I woke up because the building was shaking,
and I heard something I thought was thunder. I took the kids and went outside.
[I went up to] the official in charge and asked him to give us time to take our
belongings out. He looked at me and said, ‘Ok,’ but then in the
next moment said to the bulldozer driver, ‘Knock it down!’

I had to leave behind mattresses, linens, tables, the gas
stove. We weren’t expecting a bulldozer to come that day at all. That
same official had promised us some money so that we could rent an apartment
until I could find one to buy, but I got nothing.[50]

Another homeowner, Zarifa Aliyeva, a 47-year-old engineer,
lived at 2 Khoshginabi Street with her two adult sons and her daughter-in-law
until the authorities forcibly evicted the family on November 1, 2011. At 5:00
a.m. a bulldozer arrived to begin demolishing the building. Aliyeva described
that morning to Human Rights Watch:

I was asleep, and a noise like thunder woke me up, so I
woke up my kids. We ran outside and asked the officials overseeing the
demolition to give us some time to gather up our belongings. The officials said
‘Ok, ok,’ but then immediately told the workers to get started with
the demolition. I left half of my belongings there, including all of my dishes,
a dining room table, and a cabinet.[51]

Although Aliyeva learned in June 2011 that the building
would be destroyed, the authorities gave Aliyeva no warning whatsoever that the
demolition would begin that day.

The authorities provided Aliyeva compensation for only 50
square meters of her apartment, rather than the total 103 square meters of
actual living space (for more on unfair compensation payments, see below, Failure
to Provide Alternative Accommodation or Adequate Compensation). “I am now
forced to rent an apartment because I don’t have enough money to buy a
new one,” she told Human Rights Watch. “And I can only afford to
rent a one-room apartment, but there are four of us living there. My son has to
sleep on the floor.”[52]

Neftchilar
Avenue

On June 10, 2011, Sevinj Zainalova, her husband, and three
children, ages 8, 18, and 20, were evicted from the home in which her husband
grew up and which he had inherited from his parents at 61 Neftchilar Avenue.
Zainalova, a homemaker, described the home as “a large apartment with a
balcony and a garage, in the very city center, only a few minutes' walk from
the presidential administration.”[53] A private development
company, Klass AZ KO, notified the family nearly a year earlier that their home
would be demolished and repeatedly called, offering the family compensation of
1,500 manat (US$1,900) per square meter or a smaller apartment outside the city
center.[54]
Zainalova and her family refused the compensation offer and remained in their home.[55]

On the day of the eviction, representatives of the police
and the State Committee on Property and construction workers participated in
forcing residents from their homes. Zainalova described the forced eviction to
Human Rights Watch:

Ours was a long building, and they had been slowly
destroying parts of it for months. But when they came on Friday [June 10] to
evict us, we had no warning. My husband was at work. At least 15 police came, and
several workers started to break down the door. They shouted at us to
‘Get out right away or we'll break down the door.' I demanded to see a
court order, but of course they didn't have one. I started passing our
belongings out of the window as the police broke down our door.

I called my husband, crying. When he arrived they wouldn't
let him come into the apartment. His very own apartment! They grabbed him and
tore his suit jacket. I didn't want this to go any further, so I gathered my
children and we left. They demolished the building. Now we're living with my
mother in a two-room apartment. I don't know where we will live.

They had told me, ‘Accept our compensation offer or
you'll be in the street.' I really couldn't believe this. I couldn't believe that
they could actually forcibly remove me from my own apartment. But that's
exactly what they did.[56]

Prior to the forced eviction, Zainalova had learned that the
Baku City Executive Authority had authorized Klass AZ KO to develop a shopping
center on the land upon which the apartment building at 61 Neftchilar Avenue
and other buildings were located.[57] However
it is not clear if Baku City Executive Authority had any legal power to
transfer use of this land. On the contrary, the Azerbaijani Housing Code provides
that apartment owners also enjoy rights to the land on which their apartment is
built.[58]

In April 2011, Zainalova’s husband, as the owner of
the family’s property, together with other homeowners from this area,
filed a lawsuit in the Sabail District Court against Azinko Holding because the
Zainalovs believed it was Azinko workers they had seen performing construction
work in the area, including the demolition of their home. The lawsuit sought
pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages for violation of their property rights. Later,
the plaintiffs added the Baku City Executive Authority, the State Committee on
Property, and Klass AZ KO as co-defendants.

On December 8, 2011, the
court found that Klass AZ KO had violated the property rights of the plaintiffs
and found no legal basis for their eviction and the destruction of their
property. The court awarded Zainalova’s family just over one-fourth of
the damages requested in pecuniary damages and 1,000 manat (US$ 1,270) in
non-pecuniary damages. The plaintiffs have appealed the decision, believing
that the court award is substantially less than the value of their destroyed
home and property and insufficient compensation for the family’s
emotional suffering.[59]

The court did not rule that the Baku City Executive Authority
had acted illegally under Azerbaijani law when it transferred use of the land
to Klass AZ KO, nor that it, the police, or the State Committee on Property had
committed an offense when they participated in the illegal eviction of
Zainalova’s family and other residents.[60]

Neighborhood
behind Heydar Aliyev HallTopchubasov Street

Khajibaba Azimov, a former member of parliament and leader
of the small United Azerbaijan National Unity Party, owned an apartment in a
building on A. Topchubashov Street. After several verbal warnings that the
building would be demolished, in December 2010 police forcibly evicted him and
his family and destroyed their home despite a pending court case. Azimov had
filed the suit in April 2010 and repeated subsequent appeals to court
attempting to stop the demolition, including in the days immediately prior to
the demolition. Azimov described the forced eviction:

Many times they came and told us to leave our apartment.
There was a lot of pressure on us to leave. The last time was one week before
the actual demolition. All of the buildings around us had already been
demolished. Ours was the last to be demolished. In the evening the bulldozers
came right to the house and even started to knock it down.

The police came, dragged us out of the apartment and made
us stand on the street. Workers took out our belongings and threw them out on
the street. We watched as the building was demolished. We didn't have the
chance to immediately move our belongings to another location, and so some
things remained outside on the street and many of our belongings went missing.[61]

Azimov appealed to the prosecutor’s office in January
2011 requesting an investigation into his missing personal property. He
received no response.[62]

Shamsi Badalbeili Street

Ali A. is a retired lawyer who owned a home on Shamsi
Badalbeili Street.He described to Human Rights Watch how in December
2010, with less than two days’ notice, police and other workers arrived
at his home in to forcibly evict him, his wife, and children from their home of
15 years. Ali A. told Human Rights Watch:

I came out of my house
in the morning and the police had surrounded it. The workers entered my
apartment by force and started to take out my things. I paid them, hoping that
they would be careful in taking out my things. They weren’t rude or
offensive, but when they removed my belongings, a lot of my things were ruined,
including my books, which were my most valuable possession. Tables, chairs,
cabinets, a piano, antiques, all of which were very expensive, were all ruined.
The workers took away the motors out of two air conditioners. They took things
and just dropped them on the street.[63]

Office
of the Institute for Peace and Democracy

On August 11, 2011 the municipal authorities, without warning,
illegally demolished a building owned by Leyla Yunus, a prominent human
rights defender in Azerbaijan, and her husband, Arif. The building, located at
38-1 and 2 Shamsi Badalbeili Street was home to three human rights
organizations: the Yunus’ Institute for Peace and Democracy (of which
Leyla Yunus is chair), the Azerbaijani Campaign to Ban Landmines, and the only
women's crisis center in Baku. Although the building fell within a neighborhood
identified in February 2011 by the Baku City Executive Authority for
expropriation and demolition, in May 2011 the Yunuses had obtained an
injunction from Administrative-Economic Court no. 1 prohibiting expropriation
or demolition of the property pending a final court decision.[64]

An employee of the Institute for Peace and Democracy, Azad
Isazadeh, told Human Rights Watch that he was in the building at around 8 p.m.
when Yusuf Gambarov, an official from the State Committee on Property, and an
official from the Baku City Executive Authority arrived. They indicated that
heavy machinery would be destroying a neighboring building with which the
building shared a wall, and encouraged Isazadeh to leave the premises for his
safety. He refused. Several minutes later, without warning, heavy machinery
broke part of the office building. Workers used iron bars to break the windows
and also broke down the door. Government workers entered the building and began
removing office furniture and equipment.

Isazadeh said that he asked the officials at the site to
halt the demolition for a short period to allow time for him and local
residents who had come to assist him to remove office equipment, documents, and
personal belongings. The officials refused and ordered the demolition to go
forward immediately. According to Isazadeh, “The police were there and it
was all happening in front of their eyes and no one did anything.”[65]

Isazadeh and the others grabbed a few items that they could
carry and left the building. By 10 p.m. the building was nearly completely
destroyed. The vast majority of the furniture, office equipment, and archives
for the three organizations was buried in the debris of the demolished building
or removed by government workers. It is not known where the government workers
took the property they removed from the building.[66] In a
letter to Human Rights Watch, the Baku City Executive Authority claimed that
“after repeated warnings” the authorities had moved all of the
property in the building “safely and without damage, using specialized
transportation,” but did not specify where the property was or how it
would be returned to the Yunuses.[67]

Leyla Yunus believes that the timing and manner of the
demolition—without warning, at night, without allowing for removal of the
contents of the building, and in violation of a court injunction—amounted
to retaliation for her human rights work, including her work on illegal
expropriations, forced evictions, and house demolitions in Baku. Starting in
2010, Leyla Yunus filed numerous petitions to government agencies regarding
other house expropriations and demolitions in Baku. In addition, on the morning
of August 11, 2011, an article appeared in the New York Times describing
the demolition campaign and extensively quoting Leyla Yunus.[68]

The Yunuses’ Appeals to the
Authorities and Courts

Two weeks after the
demolition, on August 25, 2011, the Yunuses received a letter from the Baku
City Executive Authority indicating that on the basis of the general plan for
the development of Baku, construction work had been begun in the city center
(including in the area of the Yunuses’ home). The letter stated that the
Yunuses had not responded to repeated offers by the authorities to sell their
property.[69] The Yunuses maintain that
they never received any compensation offers from the government.[70]
The letter indicates that the Yunuses are entitled to receive compensation of
1,500 manat (US$1,900) per square meter through the sale of the property, which
the Yunuses consider to be less than market value.[71]

On May 18, 2011, the
Yunuses filed a claim with Baku Administrative-Economic Court no.1 against the
Baku City Executive Authority, the Nasimi District Executive Authority, the
Ministry of Finance and the State Committee on Property. Although prior to
filing the lawsuit they had not received a formal notice of expropriation, they
believed there was a real threat of state action against their property because
they saw the expropriation and demolition of houses in their neighborhood and
were aware of the Baku City Executive Authority’s order no. 76, which
indicated that homes on Shamsi Badalbeili Street would be demolished.[72]

On May 24, 2011 the Baku Administrative-Economic Court no. 1
partially granted the Yunuses’ request for temporary protection and
ordered the Baku City Executive Authority and the State Committee on Property
to refrain from any demolition or construction that may damage or harm the
Yunuses’ property. The Administrative-Economic Court hearing scheduled
for June 14 was repeatedly postponed due to the government’s failure to
appear or failure to submit documents requested by the court. The trial was ongoing
at the time of writing.

On September 7, 2011,
the Yunuses filed a complaint with the Prosecutor General’s Office identifying
a number of criminal offenses that they believe occurred in connection with the
demolition of their property on August 11, and requesting an investigation
including into the role of the Baku City Executive Authority and the State
Committee on Property in the demolition and the disregard for the court
injunction.[73] In a letter dated September
8, the Prosecutor General’s Office stated that it had referred the
complaint to the State Committee on Property for review. On September 30 the
State Committee on Property informed the Yunuses that the authorities were
resettling residents from the neighborhood behind the Heydar Aliyev Hall in
order to construct a park. With respect to their complaint concerning the
August 11, 2011 demolition, the letter merely recommended that the Yunuses
contact the Resettlement Commission of the Baku City Executive Authority, which
also has no investigative function, but is responsible solely for compensation
to homeowners.[74]

The Prosecutor General’s Office is responsible for
conducting a fair and impartial investigation into allegations of violations of
the law by state agents. By referring the complaint and allegations of crimes
to the State Committee on Property, which has no investigative function, and by
taking no further action, the Prosecutor General’s Office is refusing to
investigate alleged criminal acts by state agents. The transfer of the
complaint to the State Committee on Property is utterly inappropriate. It is
precisely this committee that the Yunuses’ allege, in their complaint,
had violated the law, and whose representative, Yusuf Gambarov, supervised the
demolition of Yunuses’ home on August 11. Leyla Yunus is not aware if the
Prosecutor General’s Office has taken any other steps with respect to her
complaint.[75]

The authorities’ disregard for the Yunuses’
complaints and refusal to investigate possible crimes is incompatible with the
obligation to provide a remedy under international law. Article 13 of the
European Convention on Human Rights requires the state to ensure an “effective
remedy” for alleged violations of the convention, and in the case of
violations that amount to criminal acts this should involve a prompt,
impartial, and thorough investigation into the allegations which is capable to
leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible.[76]
The European Court of Human Rights has also made clear “effective” refers to the impact of the investigation in
practice as well as in law, “in particular in the sense that its exercise
must not be unjustifiably hindered by the acts or omissions of the authorities
of the … State.”[77]

In October 2011, the Yunuses filed a complaint to the
European Court of Human Rights.[78]

As a result of the
demolition, the three organizations housed in the Yunuses’ property have
struggled to continue working. Although the Women’s Crisis Center relocated
at least temporarily to another building, Azad Isadzeh, who works as a
psychologist for the Women’s Crisis Center, told Human Rights Watch in
late September that the number of women seeking services at the center was
reduced by 60 to 70 percent. “People just used to walk into the office
and seek help, but now victims don’t know how to find us,” said
Isadzeh.”[79]

The destruction of the Yunuses’ property also appears
to have had a chilling effect on other homeowners in Baku who have sought to
challenge the expropriations, unfair compensation, and impending demolitions
through legal means. Fuad Agaev, a lawyer representing the Yunuses and dozens
of homeowners told Human Rights Watch that following the demolition of the
Yunuses’ property, homeowners are increasingly reluctant to pursue cases
in the courts and feel that they have no choice but to accept the inadequate
compensation offered to them, or risk losing both their home as well as the
government’s monetary compensation.[80]

Illegal Detention as a Component of
Forced Eviction

Human Rights Watch
documented three cases in which police detained homeowners and their families
in a police station while government workers demolished the apartment buildings
in which they lived. Among those detained were children ranging in ages from 12
to 15. In all cases the detentions took place in the neighborhood behind the
Heydar Aliyev Hall.

In all instances police detained homeowners and their
families without explanation, did not allow them access to legal counsel, and
released them without charge hours later, in one case as long as eight hours.
These detentions, in the course of aggressive police action to forcibly remove
people from their homes, exacerbated an already harrowing and distressing
experience for residents. Furthermore, the government’s use of police to
carry out the expropriation and facilitate the demolition implicates the police
in the illegal actions of the Baku City Executive Authority and the State
Committee on Property.[81]

49 Samed Vergun Street

Bashkhanum Abbasova, a retired
university lecturer in applied arts, lived with her two adult sons,
daughter-in-law, and grandson, in a large apartment building at 49 Samed Vergun
Street. As described below, beginning in August 2011, the authorities had steadily
dismantled the building while Abbasova and other residents continued to live in
their apartments. On December 9, 2011, Abbasova agreed to the forced sale of
her apartment, and on December 17, the authorities paid one month’s
rent in an apartment in the neighborhood for Abbasova to use temporarily.
Abbasova managed to move her furniture that same day, but continued packing and
planned to complete her move in the next few days.

However, at around 9 p.m. on
December 18, an excavator began breaking down the walls of the building at 49
Samed Vergun Street. According to Abbasova, the authorities claimed they needed
to demolish the building urgently due to errors during previous demolition work,
and it was at risk of immediate collapse. The evening quickly turned chaotic,
as police confronted residents who were upset about the demolition. Abbasova told
Human Rights Watch:

Residents started screaming and demanding that [the
authorities] at least put up a sign that there was a demolition going on.
… The authorities answered that it was a government matter and that we
don’t have the right to interfere. The police started to chase people
away and then hit people. … They hit my son and stuffed him in the police
car. And they also pushed me into the police car.[82]

Abbasova’s adult son,
Teymur, said that police punched and kicked him on his legs and stomach.[83]
Police detained Teymur Abbasov and seven men who had come to help the family move.
Abbasova said she insisted on going to the station with her son out of concern
for his safety. Although Abbasova’s neighbors sent a lawyer to the
police station, the police did allow him to enter or communicate with those
detained. Police held Abbasova and the others until 4 a.m. the next day, and
released them without charge.

Hearing
noise from the demolition, one concerned neighbor, Reikhan Guseinova, a
47-year-old businesswoman, had come out on the street from her nearby home, as
did her son, 14, and daughter, 26. She described how police also attacked them:

There were a lot of people on the street. I saw my neighbor
who was going to be evicted, shouting [at the authorities]. My children and I
all crossed the street, and [the police] started shouting, ‘Get out of
here!’ Then they started pushing us. And they started to hit us.

When they started to
push us, I was in shock. When they hit me, my children tried to protect me. And
I tried to protect my children. I fell after being pushed, and my daughter fell
on me. When my daughter fell, someone lifted her up, but then the police hit
her. The second time they hit her she fell unconscious. People were yelling,
‘Get water! Call an ambulance!’[84]

Gusseinova’s
husband arrived and she and her family went home and sought medical attention.[85]

Later that night, when Abbasova returned
to her apartment building after being released by police, she said that she
could hardly believe her eyes. She told Human Rights Watch, “My home was
no longer there. There was nothing.” Among the property she lost in the
demolition were chandeliers, a gas stove, two televisions, two air
conditioners, two fur coats, six carpets, one of which was a
200-hundred-year-old family heirloom, and family photo albums. “We lost
our past,” Abbasova told Human Rights Watch.[86]

58
Fuzuli Street

On the morning of November 19, 2010, police and other
officials surrounded an apartment building located at 58 Fuzuli Street in order
to evict the eight families remaining in the building. Demolition on the
building had begun in June 2010, and residents on the top (third) floor had
already vacated their apartments, since the roof had been removed. Residents on
the first and second floors, including Nuria Khalikova, a 46-year-old
librarian, continued living in the building. Khalikova received no official,
written notification that the building would be demolished and no information
about potential dates of demolition.

Khalikova described to Human Rights Watch the forced
eviction and illegal detention on November 19, 2010:

I went out in the morning to buy bread. When I came back I saw
that police had surrounded the building, I ran back inside to my apartment. We
had no warning that they would come that day. About 10 to 12 police broke down
my door, and workmen entered the apartment and started moving out my furniture
and belongings.

My blood pressure went up, and I started to feel very bad,
so I called an ambulance. When the ambulance arrived the police wouldn't let it
enter our courtyard. Instead, the police took me out of my apartment. They put
me in a police car and took me to the local police station, no. 22. They had
already brought my neighbors there. There were eight of us. Some people were
still in their pajamas. They held us there all day, until about 7 p.m. They
kept saying that they would let us go in half an hour, but they didn't.[87]

Although police did not explain to Khalikova the reasons for
her detention, it is clear they detained her and the other residents to prevent
them from interfering with the demolition of the building. Police attempted to
force the residents to sign a statement saying that they had been detained for
participating in an illegal demonstration, which the property owners and other
residents refused to do.

Khalikova told Human Rights Watch what she and her neighbors
discovered upon returning to their building:

When they finally let us go, we went back to our building,
but they had already started to demolish it and we couldn't go in. We saw huge
machines hauling away our belongings. I went to the warehouse to collect my
belongings; half of the things were broken and many things were missing,
including my diamond earrings that I wore every day. Many valuable things were
just gone.[88]

24
Fuzuli Street

Perviz Emirov, 42, is a retired soldier who was wounded
while serving in the military and receives a disability pension. He lived in a
small one-room apartment at 24 Fuzuli Street with his wife and their three
children: 12-year-old twin boys and a 15-year-old daughter. Emirov described to
Human Rights Watch the police detention and the destruction of his family’s
home and belongings in December 2010.[89]

About four or five police officers came at about 2 p.m. on
December 22. We had locked ourselves in the apartment, but they broke down the
door and began to detain us. I only had time to grab our documents and the
little bit of money that I had at home, nothing else. They put me, my wife, and
my daughter in the police car and took us to the police station. About 30
minutes later our twin boys came home from school and saw that the building was
being demolished. Then the police brought them to the station as well. They let
us go after about five hours and we walked home. When we got to our home, we
couldn’t believe our eyes. Everything was destroyed. To this day I
don’t know where our belongings are.[90]

Forced Eviction through Dismantling of
Homes and Cutting of Services to Homes in Which Residents Continue to Live

In numerous cases, the authorities have begun dismantling
buildings and have cut water, sewer, electricity, gas, and telephone lines
while some homeowners, who have thus far refused to accept the
government’s compensation or resettlement offers, remain in their homes.
These actions show a serious disregard for residents’ health and safety
and also appear to be an effort to forcibly evict the homeowners, by rendering
the apartments uninhabitable.

Bayil
Neighborhood

Residents of several buildings in the Bayil neighborhood next
to the National Flag Square first learned in June 2011 that their homes would
be expropriated and demolished. By September 2011, when Human Rights Watch
researchers first visited the neighborhood, most of the buildings identified
for expropriation and demolitions were already partly or completely destroyed,
and by January 2012, all of the buildings except one, at 5 Agil Guliyev Street,
had been demolished.[91]
As this report went to press on February 20, 2012, the building at 5 Agil
Guliyev Street was being dismantled and only a handful of families remained.[92]

In September 2011, Human Rights Watch interviewed five
families who, at the time of the interview, were still living in buildings in
the Bayil neighborhood next to the National Flag Square that the authorities
were actively dismantling and demolishing. In December 2011, Human Rights Watch
also interviewed a resident who had been forced to vacate her apartment due to
the hazardous conditions.

In July 2011 neighbors told Viktor Karamanov, a retired
military officer and his wife, Iveta, who are both in their sixties, about
rumors that their building, at 3 Elchin and Vusal Khajibabaev Street, where
they have lived for over 20 years, would be demolished. The six other families
living on the third floor sold their apartments and left, while the Karmanovs
stayed, hoping to negotiate the sale price of their apartment with the
authorities. They repeatedly asked officials from the resettlement commission
that they be allowed to remain in their apartment for some additional time.
However, by late August, just a little over a month after the Karmanovs first
learned of the government’s intention to demolish the building, the
authorities had destroyed much of the building, including the roof. In late
September the authorities cut the electricity and phone lines.[93]

“We did not want to sell our apartment,” Iveta
explained. “But we have to sell now because it’s impossible to live
here anymore. They broke down the roof so when it starts raining outside, it
rains in our apartment too. … We begged them to at least leave the roof
over our heads until we find someplace else to live, but they refused.”[94]

Violeta Latunova also lived at 3 Elchin and Vusal
Khajibabaev Street with her husband, their 7-year-old daughter, and her
mother-in-law. Latunova similarly told Human Rights Watch that she and her
family had remained in the building, where they owned an apartment on the first
floor, because her husband has not been able to obtain from the authorities one
of the documents necessary to conclude the government’s sale agreement
and receive compensation. At the time of the interview in September 2011,
Latunova, who was pregnant, worried for her family’s safety and told
Human Rights Watch that the day before the interview, a roofing slate just
missed falling on her.[95]

In September 2011 Human Rights Watch also interviewed Elmira
Ismailova who had lived her entire life in an apartment at 9 Agil Guliev
Street. At that time Ismailova remained in her apartment despite serious risk
to her safety because the government was actively dismantling her building. She
told Human Rights Watch:

The authorities came in early June 2011 and told us that
they would demolish our homes. Very soon after that, fifteen of my neighbors
sold their apartments at the price the government offered. As soon as people
sold, workers would come and start taking the apartments apart. They would take
doors, windows, flooring, and any furniture remaining. There are only five
families remaining now and almost everything except the walls is taken apart,
including much of the roof.[96]

Ismailova said that she argued with the workers every day to
prevent them from destroying the roof on the part of the building in which she
and her husband remained. She described the situation as a “war”
and refused to leave the building for fear workers would remove the roof or
demolish the building in her absence. She told Human Rights Watch that she wanted
to sell her apartment for the market value.[97]

Aysel A. lived with her husband and their two children in a
recently-renovated apartment at 9 Agil Guliev Street in the Bayil neighborhood,
immediately next to the National Flag Square. Aysel A. described how, beginning
in September 2011, workers gradually rendered her apartment uninhabitable by
removing the building’s roof, dismantling the flue that vented the
heating system, and temporarily cutting off the water supply. “We were
afraid to turn on the gas and the oven because the ventilation system had been
ruined,” she told Human Rights Watch. “So we stopped using the gas.
Then the people on the third floor had to leave because there was no roof. I
left on October 18 because we just couldn’t stay any longer. I was afraid
for my children’s health and safety. I’m 47 years old and I should
be helping my children get on with their lives. But instead I’m starting
everything over from scratch because they wrecked everything we’ve built
for ourselves.”[98]

Azadlyg Avenue

Dilshad Shirinova is a 52-year-old music teacher who lived
in an apartment owed by her sister, Emma, at 146-148 Azadlyg Avenue, in central
Baku, across the street from the newly-built residence of Azerbaijani President
Ilham Aliyev.[99]
In December 2010 Shirinova received notification that the building would be
demolished, allegedly because it had been “condemned,” although
officials provided no documentation supporting the hazardous condition of the
building, which was built in the 1960s.

The Shirinovas were offered an apartment outside of the city
center as compensation. However, after visiting the apartment and seeing its
dilapidated condition (as described in more detail below), Dilshad refused to
accept the compensation offer and remained in the apartment on Azadlyg Avenue.

Beginning in July 2011, while Dilshad Shirinova and a woman
in another apartment remained in the building, workers started to take out the
windows, doors, and floors of the neighboring vacant apartments and to
dismantle the utility infrastructure of the building. Workers cut off
electricity and destroyed a water pipe on a floor above the Shirinovas’
apartment, causing flooding in their apartment. Workers also began to demolish
stairs and banisters, making the building unsafe, especially at night.

The gradual demolition and worsening of conditions forced
Dilshad to relocate to another apartment and pay rent. Dilshad went to the
police, who refused to help, and also wrote a letter to the prosecutor that
went unanswered. The Shirinovas filed a complaint with the Baku Administrative-Economic
Court no. 2, and in June 2011 received an injunction prohibiting further
demolition of the apartment. The authorities appealed the decision, but it was
upheld by the appeals court on August 26, 2011. In blatant violation of the
injunction and on the same day as the appeals court ruling upholding the
injunction, the authorities forcibly entered Shirinova’s apartment,
removed her household goods and personal belongings, and then completely
destroyed her apartment along with the rest of the building.[100]

Neighborhood
behind the Heydar Aliyev Hall

Fuzuli Street

Homeowners of three properties on Fuzuli Street described to
Human Rights Watch how in early February 2010, officials from the Baku City
Executive Authority and local district officials informed them that the
authorities were buying the entire block of freestanding houses and fenced off
the area. Within about two weeks, without warning they cut the electricity, gas,
water, and telephone lines to the homes. Property owners received no written
documents regarding the expropriation and evictions.

Ismail and Shovket Bagvanov owned and lived in a
single-family home at 44 Fuzuli Street.[101] Shortly after they
cut off utility services to the building, the authorities removed the
building’s doors. The Bagvanovs called the police, who never arrived.
“After they cut the power, water, gas, and telephone we were forced to
move out and live with our relatives as our home became uninhabitable,”
Shovket Bagvanova explained. “But our furniture and belongings remained
in the house.”[102]

In December 2010 the Bagvanovs received a notice that the
authorities would grant them compensation at a rate of 1,500 manat (US$1,900)
for a portion of their total square meterage (for more on problems related to
compensation see below, Arbitrary and Inaccurate Measurement of Homes as the
Basis for Compensation). One week later, the authorities demolished the house.
“We watched as they demolished our house,” Shovkent Bagvanova told
Human Rights Watch. “It was shocking. We had less than two hours to get
our things out. Most of our possessions were buried in the house or taken away
by the workers. In two days the entire house was leveled to the ground. The
police were there and prevented anyone from interfering with the
demolition.”[103]

The Bagvanovs filed a complaint with the Nasimi District
Court in August 2010 asking that the authorities pay 5,000 manat (US$6,333) per
square meter for their 255 square meter home, but lost the case and all of
their subsequent appeals, through to the Constitutional Court.[104]

Malik Aliyev, 47, who owned a property at 40 Fuzuli Street that
he used for both his home and his small business, a bakery, described a similar
experience. In February 2010 officials from the Baku City Executive Authority
told him to vacate the property, offering to buy it for 1,500 manat (US$1,900)
per square meter. Aliyev refused. Soon thereafter, the authorities cut off all
the services to his home and fenced off the entire block. Aliyev was forced to
move with his wife and two school-age children to a rented apartment leaving
much of their property in their home.

In October 2010, Aliyev received a written notice from the
Baku City Executive Authority stating that they would take unspecified
“measures” if he did not vacate the property. Again, Aliyev
refused. He told Human Rights Watch, “Then, in early November I received
a call from my neighbors telling me that the authorities were bulldozing my house.
I immediately rushed to my house and when I arrived, workers had already
removed the doors, windows, and roof.” The home was then completely
demolished.[105]

Aliyev had appealed to the Nasimi District Court in August
2010 to prevent the demolition and ensure fair compensation, but lost that case
as well as appeals through the Supreme Court.[106]
After the demolition, the authorities informed Aliyev that if he did not accept
their compensation offer soon, he would receive nothing. He finally relented in
late November and received compensation for only a fraction of the size of his
actual property, owing to the authorities’ selective use of criteria in
ownership documents to establish the size of a property when determining
compensation, as described in more detail below.[107]

Other Streets behind the Heydar Aliyev Hall

Human Rights Watch
interviewed homeowners in the neighborhood behind the Heydar Aliyev Hall who,
at the time of the interview, were still living in apartment buildings that the
municipal government was actively demolishing.[108]
At the time of writing, the homeowners had refused to accept the
government’s compensation offers and vacate their homes.

Bashkhanum Abbasova, whose forced eviction, detention, and
demolition of her home are described above, and her neighbor, Rakhilia
Sultanova, both described to Human Rights Watch how government workers
dismantled the interiors of vacant apartments and the common spaces of their large
apartment building at 49 Samed Vurgun Street and in so doing began to render
their own apartments uninhabitable.[109]
Interviewed in September 2011, Sultanova told Human Rights Watch, “They
are destroying the apartments from the inside. They take everything apart and
break down the walls, turning the place into a dump. When it rains, everything
in our apartment gets wet. It’s impossible to live here anymore!”[110]
Abbasova also explained the risks to her safety she felt while she remained in
her apartment. “The workers are dismantling everything, especially at
night,” she said. “Walking in the stairwell when it is dark out has
become terrifying since the workers removed the metal hand rail along the
stairs.”[111]

Ibrahim I., 55, who owned a home on Shamsi Badalbeili Street
that he was ultimately forced to vacate in August 2011, also described to Human
Rights Watch how the authorities steadily demolished the building in which his
apartment was located, beginning in July 2011. After neighbors informed Ibrahim
I. and his wife in February 2011 that their home would be demolished, Ibrahim
I. visited the local resettlement commission, where officials from the Baku
City Executive Authority and the State Committee on Property threatened him
saying, “If you don’t get out, then we will topple this whole house
on your head.”[112]

Ibrahim I. filed a lawsuit on July 10, 2011, to try to stop
the impending demolition, and three days later officials arrived to tell him to
vacate his apartment, yelling at him to “Go, get your things and get
out!” Ibrahim I.’s wife and daughter left to stay with relatives.[113]

On July 15, the authorities began to demolish the building
from the upper floors, initially leaving a hole in the wall of Ibrahim
I.’s bedroom. Ibrahim I. called the police and the Ministry of Emergency
Situations and filed a complaint, after which the demolition stopped for ten
days. When the demolition resumed, the workers cut a hole in his
apartment’s ceiling. Ibrahim I. again filed a police complaint, but, just
over a week later, Ibrahim I. returned home after attending a court hearing on
his case to find that the entire bedroom ceiling had been removed.

This time, when Ibrahim I. called the police, they refused
to come, saying, “We don’t interfere with the work of the
demolition crews.” The demolition continued around Ibrahim I.’s
apartment until ultimately, on August 6 he was forced to remove what things he
could and vacate, leaving some of his possessions behind. Ibrahim I. told Human
Rights Watch that he did not receive a written offer of compensation for his
apartment.[114]

Threats and Intimidation of Homeowners

Neighborhood behind the Heydar Aliyev
HallIn interviews with Human Rights Watch, some homeowners described
an atmosphere of intimidation and uncertainty when interacting with government
officials regarding the expropriation and demolition of their homes. These
officials threatened homeowners who challenged the government’s actions
or refused to readily accept the government’s compensation offers. This
appears to be particularly prevalent in the neighborhood behind the Heydar
Aliyev Hall. Other homeowners told Human Rights Watch that government officials
behaved professionally.

Some homeowners first learned about the government’s
plans to expropriate their homes through notices that were threatening in tone.
Homeowners in the neighborhood behind the Heydar Aliyev Hall and in the Bayil
neighborhood adjacent to the National Flag Square received notices stating that
the Baku City Executive Authority plans evictions in the area instructing
homeowners to visit the “resettlement commission headquarters.” The
notices issued in the neighborhood behind the Heydar Aliyev Hall included
threats of unspecified action to be taken against homeowners or their property,
indicating that in the event that property owners did not visit the
resettlement commission within two weeks, “all necessary measures will be
taken in accordance with the law.”[115] No further
information was indicated about what measures might be taken against property
owners or their properties, which laws govern any such measures, or
owners’ options regarding rights of appeal in the event of a dispute.
These notices were often on plain paper, without letterhead, official stamps,
or signatures. Some residents initially experienced confusion and anxiety about
which agency or government authority was issuing these instructions.[116]

Some property owners who visited the resettlement commission
described hostile and intimidating encounters with government officials
representing the resettlement commission.[117] Officials did not
provide any information about the expropriation and demolition process or even
introduce themselves. Homeowners later learned that the officials were from the
State Committee on Property and the Baku City Executive Authority.

Homeowners told Human Rights Watch that during their visits
to the resettlement commission office, officials informed them of the
compensation offer for their property, but provided no offers in writing and no
information about property owners' rights, including their rights of appeal.[118]
When Alirza Rzaev who lives in an apartment on Mirzagha Aliyev Street in the neighborhood
behind the Heydar Aliyev Hall, indicated his dissatisfaction with the official
compensation offer for his property, a State Committee on Property official
threatened him saying, “Take the money and get out of your apartment! If
you don't, you will see: I will throw you out by force anyway in 15
days.”[119]

Another homeowner from the same neighborhood said that an
official threatened her after she refused a compensation offer based on a
measurement half of the actual size of her apartment. She remembered, “He
said that he would throw me out so far away that I wouldn’t even know
where I had ended up! [Vykinit menya v takoe mesto, chto ya ne uznayu, gde ya
nakhozhus!].”[120]
Eight other homeowners described similar threats made by officials at the
relocation board.[121]

In addition, some homeowners described how officials from
the city housing administration office or other agencies have come to their
homes and threatened them, saying that the owners and other residents must
vacate their homes within a specified period, usually one to two weeks, or face
forcible removal. In some cases the officials came repeatedly over a period of
months, at times accompanied by police, and typically did not introduce
themselves or indicate which agency they represented. Residents learned only
later who these individuals were and where they worked. Homeowners feel that such
actions are designed to intimidate them into accepting compensation packages to
which they do not agree.[122]

Afag Ismailova, who owns an apartment on Shamsi Badalbeili
Street, told Human Rights Watch about the threats officials made in March or
April 2011:

I live with my husband and two daughters. One evening some
officials, together with 15 or 16 policemen, came to our door. They were
knocking on the door loudly and kicking it. When I opened it they said that I
must vacate the apartment and they threatened me, saying that if we don't leave
willingly that they would drag us out, throw out our belongings and destroy the
house anyway. I asked them to introduce themselves but they didn't. We were
really scared by all of this. It has really harmed my health.[123]

An official similarly told Rakhila Sultanova, “If you
don’t vacate your apartment nicely, we will kick you out using
bulldozers.”[124]
Following the demolition of Leyla and Arif Yunus’ property, an official
told one resident of the same neighborhood, “We will also destroy your
home with a bulldozer, and you’ll be buried with it.”[125]

Bayil Neighborhood

On December 5, 2011, police clashed
with homeowners with apartments in the nine-story building at 5 Agil Guliyev
Street. A lawyer representing a number of homeowners in the building told Human
Rights Watch that some homeowners gathered outside the building to protest the low
compensation offered to them by the authorities. The police and local
administration authorities arrived soon after. Following a heated exchange with
one homeowner, a young man, a representative of the district administration,
slapped the homeowner in the face and ordered police to take him away. The
homeowner was later released.[126]

Lack of Transparency

When the government began its expropriations and
demolitions, it did not publicly share any plans for the redevelopment of the
city center. Such a general plan for redevelopment could provide important
information to homeowners about expectations for future development, which
neighborhoods would be affected, and which buildings will be or are likely to
be expropriated and demolished. The government announced only on November 3,
2011 that it had completed the general plan for the development of central
Baku, well after the demolitions in the city, including those documented in
this report, took place.[127]
The government also has not made public the Baku City Executive
Authority’s orders which allegedly govern the expropriations,
compensation schemes, and house demolitions.[128]

As a result of the lack of transparency, many property
owners live with a high level of uncertainty and anxiety about the future
because they do not know when they will be evicted, when their homes will be
demolished, and where they will live once the destruction occurs. One property
owner, a pediatrician living on Shamsi Badalbeili Street, described her anxiety
to Human Rights Watch, saying, “I am afraid to go to work or to the store
out of fear that the bulldozers will come while I am away. And what
then?”[129]

IV. Forced
Evictions and Expropriations in Azerbaijani and International Law

Forced
Evictions under Azerbaijani and International Law

The actions described above demonstrate a serious disregard
for the safety and well-being of homeowners and others. They also violate
Azerbaijan’s constitutional guarantee of the right to private property
and protection against unlawful entry.[130] Article 43 of the
constitution protects people from unlawful eviction, stating, “No one
shall be deprived of his/her residence,” and places a positive obligation
on the state to “take measures in order to implement the right to a
residence.”[131]
The Criminal Code also makes “deliberate destruction of or damage to
property” an offense.[132]

Expropriations and
demolitions carried out in this way are a form of forced eviction, which is
considered a serious violation of international law. For the purposes of this
report, the definition of forced evictions used is that defined by the UN
Special Rapporteur on adequate housing in his 2007 Basic Principles and
Guidelines on Development-Based Evictions and Displacement. According to these
guidelines, forced evictions are considered “acts and/or omissions
involving the coerced or involuntary displacement of individuals, groups and
communities from homes and/or lands and common property resources that were
occupied or depended upon, thus eliminating or limiting the ability of an
individual, group or community to reside or work in a particular dwelling,
residence or location, without the provision of, and access to, appropriate
forms of legal or other protection.”[133]

Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), to which Azerbaijan is also a party, establishes
the obligation to protect the right to adequate housing, which includes
protection against forced eviction.[134]
In its General Comment 4 on article 11 of the Covenant, the UN Committee on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights states that “all persons should possess a
degree of security of tenure which guarantees legal protection against forced
eviction, harassment and other threats.”[135] If
evictions are to take place, in order for them not to be considered
“forced,” they must be carried out lawfully, only in exceptional
circumstances, and in full accordance with relevant provisions of international
human rights and humanitarian law. They must also be undertaken solely for the
purpose of promoting the general welfare, be reasonable and proportional, and
be regulated so as to ensure full and fair compensation and rehabilitation for
those affected.[136]

Under the European
Convention on Human Rights, forced evictions constitute a serious violation of
the right to private and family life.[137] The government may interfere with this right
only in accordance with the law and as necessary in a democratic society. In
numerous cases, the European Court of Human Rights has held that the
government's destruction of private homes and household property
“constitute particularly grave and unjustified interferences with the
applicants' rights to respect for their private and family lives....”[138]

Moreover, the treatment
of evictees in Baku in certain cases rises to a level of severity that
constitutes inhuman and degrading treatment in violation of article 3 of the
European Convention which reads: “No one shall be subjected to torture or
to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” In its jurisprudence,
the European Court has found that forcible evictions and destruction of homes at
this level of severity can amount to inhuman and degrading treatment, for
example when the government undertakes “deliberate destruction in utter
disregard for [residents'] ... welfare, depriving them of most of their
personal belongings and leaving them without shelter and assistance.”[139] The International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR) also prohibits
inhuman and degrading treatment.[140]

Expropriation
under Azerbaijani and International Law

Azerbaijani Law

All of the forced evictions
described above take place in the context of the government’s
expropriation of private properties in central Baku in order to clear the land
and use it for purposes determined by the government. Expropriations and
evictions are envisaged in Azerbaijani and international law. However, the
authorities can resort to expropriations only in exceptional circumstances, for
purposes that are clearly in the public interest, and with appropriate due
process, including provision of fair compensation and/or alternative housing
options. The ongoing expropriation and demolition of properties in central Baku
by the Baku City Executive Authority are not lawful, as they have no legal
basis in national law and directly violate provisions of existing national law
on expropriation.[141]

Article 29 of the constitution of Azerbaijan guarantees the
right to private property, that property shall not be expropriated except by
court decision, and that property owners must be fairly compensated based on
the value of the property.[142]

Azerbaijan’s law on expropriation of land for state
needs allows the state to expropriate private property only when required
by state needs for a limited number of purposes.[143]
State needs justifying forced expropriation are identified as: construction of
roads or other communication lines; for purposes of defending a state border;
construction of defense facilities; or construction of industrial mining
facilities.[144]

Expropriation for state
needs must be based on a decision of the Cabinet of Ministers.[145] The relevant Cabinet of Ministers decision must
then be entered into the State Committee on Property’s registry, and
property owners must be notified in writing that their properties will be
expropriated no less than one year in advance.[146] As described in more detail below, the state must
provide property owners with compensation at market value, among other costs
(See below, Failure to Provide Alternative Accommodation or Adequate
Compensation).

The actions of the Baku City Executive Authority to
expropriate and demolish properties in the neighborhoods of central Baku where
Human Rights Watch documented abuses clearly violate Azerbaijani national law.
There have been no court decisions validating the expropriations and
demolitions of the properties, as stipulated in article 29 of the constitution.
There has been no decision of the Cabinet of Ministers approving the
expropriations, and no such decision has been filed with the State Committee on
Property. Many of the residents interviewed by Human Rights Watch said they
were notified less than a year in advance of demolitions. Some property owners
had no warning at all, or as little as a few hours’ or weeks’
notification. In some cases homeowners never received any official
notification, but learned about impending demolitions from neighbors. In a
number of cases, evictions and demolitions took place in violation of court
orders prohibiting the authorities from taking action against the properties.
These instances are described above, in Forced Evictions and Demolitions of
Homes in Central Baku.

The Neighborhood behind Heydar Aliyev Hall

For example, there is no national law allowing
expropriations for the types of construction and development projects identified
by the Baku City Executive Authority as necessitating the expropriations,
evictions, and demolitions in the neighborhood behind the Heydar Aliyev Hall.[147]
A 2011 mayoral order indicates that “under the ongoing national
socio-economic development programs, the Baku City Executive Authority has
aimed to organize world-class beautification projects” in Baku.[148]
The project envisages replacing the numerous small, 19th century
homes and modest apartment buildings with a large park, pedestrian streets, and
fountains, with underground parking garages. The park is envisioned to be
bordered by new, wider roads, luxury housing, and office space. [149]

The Baku City Executive Authority’s orders specify that
demolition of homes in the neighborhood behind the Heydar Aliyev Hall will
clear land for the government to construct a “garden-park complex”
as part of a program of beautification, landscaping, and the construction of
public spaces, such as plazas, parks, promenades, as well as residential
buildings.[150]
These orders have never been made public, although a nongovernmental
organization in Azerbaijan obtained copies of orders nos. 511 (2008) and 76
(2011) and shared them with Human Rights Watch.

The Baku City Executive Authority maintains that the
expropriations in the neighborhood behind the Heydar Aliyev Hall are lawful
based on a 1987 order (no. 182) from the Cabinet of Ministers of the Azerbaijan
Soviet Socialist Republic (a constituent entity of the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics) and the Baku Executive Administration, which established a
general plan for development of Baku. However, according to Fuad Agaev, a
lawyer specializing in cases related to violations of property rights, this
general plan expired in 2005 and was not replaced. In addition, the general plan
of 1987 also did not include a park in the neighborhood behind the Heydar
Aliyev Hall, but rather in another location, where a large bank was
constructed.[151]
At this writing Human Rights Watch has not received a reply to our letter
requesting information about the legal basis for the expropriations in this
neighborhood.

Bayil Neighborhood

The expropriations, evictions, and demolitions in the Bayil
neighborhood next to the National Flag Square are regulated by two separate
orders from the Baku City Executive Authority: no. 71 of February 15, 2011 and
no. 243 of May 31, 2011.[152]
Order no. 71 indicates that the State Flag Square complex needs to be “enlarged,
beautified, and greened and transformed into a resort zone,” and for this
reason the nine-story building at 5 Agil Guliyev street will be removed and
residents relocated to newly-built residential areas.[153]
A notification to residents in other buildings in the neighborhood regarding
the impending evictions indicates that the purpose of the expropriations and demolitions
in this area is to widen a highway connecting part of the historic Silk Road
with the village Bayil, and linking to the southern part of the country.[154]

Although construction of roads is one of the state needs
identified under law as validating state expropriation of private property, the
other conditions for lawful expropriation, including the Cabinet of Ministers
decision, notification to residents in writing no less than one year in advance
of the impending expropriations, compensation at market value, and a court
order, have not been met. Beautification and greening are not identified under
law as validating state expropriation of private property.

Neftchilar Avenue

With regard to the expropriation, eviction, and demolition
at 61 Neftchilar Avenue and at neighboring homes, the Baku City Executive
Authority, by its order no. 85 of March 9, 2010, authorized the private
development company, Klass AZ KO, to begin development of a shopping center in
one area along Neftchilar Avenue. The order indicates that the land in this
location is currently occupied by residential and non-residential buildings,
and that the resettlement of residents must be carried out based on mutual
agreement and at the expense of Klass AZ KO.[155] Although
the order did not specify 61 Neftchilar Avenue as being subject to
redevelopment, residents of 61 Neftchilar Avenue later received a letter from
the Sabayil District Housing Office dated April 26, 2011, citing the order and
stating that the property at 61 Neftchilar Street will be demolished in order
for a shopping center to be built by Klass AZ KO.[156]

Subsequently, as described above, on June 10, 2011,
representatives from the police and the State Committee on Property forcibly
evicted residents from 61 Neftchilar Avenue. As of January 2012, construction
works in the area were ongoing.

The authorities deny responsibility for the eviction and
demolition at 61 Neftchilar Avenue and at neighboring buildings, claiming that
because they had transferred use of the land to Klass AZ KO, it was that
company’s responsibility to negotiate and compensate the residents. As
described above, the Sabail District Court decision of December 8, 2011 found
Klass AZ KO had violated the property rights of several homeowners at 61
Neftchilar Avenue and ordered the company to pay them pecuniary and
non-pecuniary damages. The court found no fault on the part of the authorities.

However, as mentioned above, it is not clear that the Baku
City Executive Authority had any basis in Azerbaijani law to transfer of the
land under the apartment building at 61 Neftchilar Avenue to Klass AZ KO. In
addition, the Sabail District Police and officials from the State Committee on
Property and the Baku City Executive Authority participated in the forced
evictions of homeowners in June 2011, which made possible the buildings’
demolition to allow for new construction to take place.[157]

Moreover, for the purposes of
international law and Azerbaijan’s obligations under human rights law, the fact that the authorities granted a
private company the rights to develop land and to carry out evictions and
demolitions of private property does not diminish the state responsibility of
Azerbaijan. Rather, the company for relevant purposes is acting as an agent of
the state, and the Baku City Authority Executive, and ultimately the government
of Azerbaijan, bear responsibility for Klass AZ KO’s actions in carrying
out functions such as evictions and demolitions.[158] Also as the European Court of Human
Rights has affirmed, whether agency is given to a private actor formally, as in
this case, or informally, “the acquiescence or connivance of the
authorities of a Contracting State in the acts of private individuals which
violate the Convention rights of other individuals within its jurisdiction may
engage the State's responsibility under the Convention.”[159]

Azadlyg Avenue

Human Rights Watch was not able to obtain information
regarding the government’s justification for expropriations and
demolitions on Azadlyg Avenue, across the street from the presidential
residence, although the authorities have informally told local residents that
the authorities intend to widen a road in the area. According to some media
reports, the homes were demolished in order to limit visibility of the
presidential residence.[160] However,
as with expropriations, evictions, and demolitions in the neighborhood behind
the Heydar Aliyev Hall and in the Bayil neighborhood, even if the
government’s stated rationale is consistent with the law regulating the
circumstances in which the government may expropriate private property, the
other conditions for lawful expropriation, including a Cabinet of Ministers’
decision, notification to residents in writing no less than one year in advance
of the impending expropriations, a court order, and compensation at market
value, have not been met.

International
Law

The expropriation and demolition of properties in central
Baku also violate Azerbaijan's obligations under the European Convention on
Human Rights (ECHR), which explicitly protects against unlawful or arbitrary
expropriation of property, unlawful and arbitrary interference with the family,
and forced evictions, and sets limits on states’ power to expropriate.

Article 1 of the convention’s Protocol No. 1 states:
“Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of
his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the
public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the
general principles of international law.”[161]
Article 8 upholds the individual’s “right to respect for his
private and family life, his home and his correspondence”[162]

According to European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence,
any interference with the right to private and family life, or any deprivation
of property, including by expropriation or forced sale, must comply with the
principle of lawfulness, be in the public interest, and pursue a legitimate aim
in a proportionate manner.[163]

In addition, article 17 of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which Azerbaijan is a party, guarantees
the right not to be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with one's
privacy and home.[164]
In its General Comment 16, the Human Rights Committee determined that
“interference with a person's home can only take place ‘in cases
envisaged by the law,’” and that the law "should be in
accordance with the provisions, aims and objectives of the Covenant and should
be, in any event, reasonable in the particular circumstances."[165]
The UN General Assembly has recognized the "fundamental obligation (of
Governments) to protect and improve houses and neighbourhoods, rather than
damage or destroy them."[166]

The authorities’ failure to provide residents adequate
notification before evicting them, as documented above, is inconsistent with
recommendations made by the UN Committee on Economic, Social
and Cultural Rights. In its General Comment 7, the committee calls on
governments to ensure a number of procedural safeguards in cases of forced
evictions, including:

a)an opportunity for genuine consultation with those
affected;

b)adequate and reasonable notice for all affected
persons prior to the scheduled date of eviction;

c)information on the proposed evictions and, where
applicable, on the alternative purpose for which the land or housing is to be
used, to be made available in reasonable time to all those affected;

d)especially where groups of people are involved,
government officials or their representatives to be present during an eviction;

e)all persons carrying out the eviction to be
properly identified;

f)evictions not to take place in particularly bad
weather or at night unless the affected persons consent otherwise;

g)provision of legal remedies;

h)provision, where possible, of legal aid to persons
who require it to seek redress from the courts.[167]

The government of Azerbaijan established two main mechanisms
to compensate homeowners for the loss of their homes. Described in more detail
below, they include a forced sale at a flat rate for all properties, and provision
of alternative housing.

The municipal authorities have claimed that these
arrangements are lawful.[168]
However several aspects violate Azerbaijan’s national law, which requires
the government to purchase at market value any properties that it expropriates,
including for state needs,[169]
and pay an additional 20 percent of the market value of the home as moral
compensation.[170]
Article 31.7 of the Housing Code further stipulates that the state must pay the
owner additional costs, including: lost income associated with changing
residence; the cost of temporary use of another residence until obtaining a new
home; moving costs; real estate brokers’ fees; and real estate and
transaction closing costs.[171]
The state and the owner must agree upon the price of the sale.[172] The
state may provide alternative housing only upon agreement with the owner, and
taking into account the cost of the new housing in the purchase price of the
expropriated property.[173]

As described
in more detail below, the existing compensation mechanisms also violate
Azerbaijan’s international obligations, which require that any
compensation be fair and the process of determining compensation have a
reasonable and rational basis, that the government’s actions not pose an
excessive burden on individuals; and that the state not derive unjust
enrichment from the measure.[174]

Forced Sale at an Arbitrary Price

Homeowners from the neighborhood behind the Heydar Aliyev
Hall and the Bayil neighborhood near the National Flag Square described the
government’s compensation process to Human Rights Watch. For apartments
and houses smaller than 60 square meters, the government’s compensation
mechanism requires homeowners to enter into a real estate transaction with a
private individual at a fixed price, set by the government, in order to receive
monetary compensation for their homes. This mechanism amounts to a forced sale
by property owners since, by order of the Baku City Executive Authority,
property owners do not have the opportunity to sell their properties by any
other means.

According to a February 2011 letter issued by the State
Committee on Property, the compensation rate is 1,500 manat (US$1,900) per
square meter, irrespective of the property’s location, age, condition,
quality of renovation, or any other factors.[175] The authorities have
not publicized or explained how this rate was determined and by whom, or how
the same rate was established for homes expropriated prior to the
committee’s February 2011 letter. In no cases known to Human Rights Watch
has the government conducted appraisals to determine the market value of
properties, nor does it consider in its awarding of compensation any
independent appraisals ordered by homeowners.

When beginning the
expropriations and demolitions in the neighborhood behind the Heydar Aliyev
Hall, the Baku City Executive Authority noted “the absence of a mechanism
in existing legislation to govern the appraisal of home values located in the
demolition area.”[176] Rather than establishing
such a mechanism or conducting appraisals of individual homes, the Baku City
Executive Authority authorized a private individual to purchase homes through
private real estate transactions with property owners at the fixed price.

For the purchase of many homes in the neighborhood behind
the Heydar Aliyev Hall, beginning in 2008 the Baku City Executive Authority has
relied on private persons to conclude real estate transactions with homeowners.[177]
The Baku City Executive Authority justified this type of mechanism claiming
that knowing of the impending expropriations, “residents artificially
overprice their homes several times above market rate, resulting in additional
expenses [for the Baku City Executive Authority].”[178]

A similar compensation system exists for homes expropriated
and demolished next to the National Flag Square in the Bayil neighborhood
where, in order to receive monetary compensation, owners of apartments smaller
than 60 square meters are also required to conclude real estate transactions
with a private individual at the fixed rate of 1,500 manat (US$1,900) per
square meter.[179]

The compensation price per square meter set by the
authorities is arbitrary insofar as it does not consider any individual
qualities of the homes involved and is also lower than independent appraisals
have valued homes in central Baku. For example, Khajibaba Azimov owned a home
on A. Topchubashov Street, in the neighborhood behind the Heydar Aliyev Hall,
which was demolished in December 2010 in violation of a court order. Azimov
told Human Rights Watch that he had paid for an independent appraisal that
valued his home at 4,000 manat (US$ 5,065) per square meter.[180] A
resident of Shamsi Badalbeili Street, in the same neighborhood, told Human
Rights Watch that an independent appraisal valued his home at 3,000 manat
(US$3,810) per square meter.[181]

Arbitrary and Inaccurate Measurement of
Homes as the Basis for Compensation

In addition, in cases documented by Human Rights Watch in
both the neighborhood behind the Heydar Aliyev Hall and Bayil neighborhood next
to the National Flag Square, the government refuses to provide compensation
based on the actual square meterage of homes. Compensation offered to these
homeowners is often based on an ownership document (in Russian, kupcha),
which is a holdover from the Soviet period, when several communal apartments
typically shared common kitchen and bathroom facilities. The kupcha
therefore indicates only the square meters of “living space” of an
apartment, and does not include the kitchen or bathroom, or, in some cases,
additions that owners have built. Another property document, the “technical
passport,” typically indicates the full square meters of the apartment.
However, in numerous cases documented by Human Rights Watch, the government has
refused to rely on the technical passport when determining an apartment’s
size.

In cases in which property owners are not in possession of a
technical passport, they must obtain one—a process which requires that
officials from the housing authorities measure homes to determine the size.
Some homeowners interviewed by Human Rights Watch believe that officials
deliberately did not take accurate measurements, such as by excluding the
thickness of the exterior walls, which in some homes is up to 90 centimeters
thick, and only measuring the floor space inside of a building.[182]

In 16 cases documented by Human Rights Watch, the
authorities consider apartments or homes to be from eight square meters to up
to over 100 square meters smaller than they actually are, based either on the
government’s selective reading of outdated property documents or on the
government’s inaccurate measuring of houses’ size.[183] As a
result, homeowners will receive significantly less compensation than if they
were compensated for the true size of their homes.

For example, Zarifa Aliyeva, 48, who lived in a
free-standing house in the Bayil neighborhood with her two adult sons and
daughter-in-law, described the consequences of the government’s
evaluation of her home as 21 meters smaller than its actual size. According to
the technical passport, Aliyeva’s home, which included three rooms, a
kitchen, bathroom, and a small yard, was 50 square meters, while the
authorities were willing to compensate her only for 29 square meters, as
indicated in the purchase document from the forced sale. As a result, the
compensation available to her is only 43,500 manat (US$55,245). If the
calculation had been made based on the true size of her house she would have
been eligible to receive 75,000 manat (US$95,250). “There are three
families living in this house now: my son and his wife, my younger son who
plans to get married, and me. For the money we are being offered, we
can’t find anything within the vicinity of Baku that would be big enough
for all of us. I fear we will be left in the street,” Aliyeva told Human
Rights Watch in September 2011, about a month before her house was demolished.[184]

Malik Aliyev, who lived
on Fuzuli Street and whose home the authorities demolished without warning in
November 2010, received just 45,000 manat (US$57,200) for 30 square meters of
living space of his single-family home, rather than the 216,000 manat
(US$274,000) he would have received for the full 144 square meters of his
property. The authorities also did not consider the income loss for Aliyev upon
destruction of his property. “I used to live and work there, but now I am
left without both my home and my business,” Aliyev lamented in an
interview with Human Rights Watch. “It was very hard to live through
this. In a moment I felt like I became homeless. They took everything from
me.”[185]

Failure to Provide Accommodation of
Commensurate Size and Quality and Denial of Property Rights

Some property owners told Human Rights Watch that officials
offered them no monetary compensation at all, but told them they would be
resettled to an apartment located well outside of the city center. These offers
appear to be typically made to owners of homes larger than 60 square meters. In
some cases documented by Human Rights Watch, the new apartments are
approximately the same size as homeowners’ existing homes in central
Baku, or somewhat larger; in other cases, the apartments provided for
resettlement are significantly smaller. Homeowners do not have a choice about
the resettlement location. In at least some cases, the government has stripped
homeowners of their property rights by refusing to grant them ownership
documents indicating title to the new apartments offered to them for
relocation.

Those resettled and those who have viewed the apartments
available for resettlement have concerns about the quality of the new
apartments.

A number of residents in the neighborhood behind the Heydar
Aliyev Hall told Human Rights Watch that they were offered relocation to
apartments smaller than their existing apartments. The authorities offered Afa
Ismailova, a 52-year-old pediatrician and a mother of two, a 110 square meter
apartment in exchange for her house of approximately 150 square meters, where
her husband has lived for nearly 50 years. She told Human Rights Watch,
“I don’t want to give up my home. I asked the officials
[responsible for relocation] to give me compensation, a fair price. I
don’t want to accept an apartment. The one they’re offering me is
not even equivalent in size!”[186]

Similarly, the authorities offered Rafiga and Emil Agayev an
apartment of 43 square meters on the edge of the city in exchange for their 95
square meter home on Shamsi Badalbeili Street, which Rafiga described as a
designated architectural landmark and which the couple completely renovated in
1999.[187]

Some homeowners also explained their preference for monetary
compensation so that they could decide themselves where to live. Fariza
Gulieva, who lives in the neighborhood behind the Heydar Aliyev Hall, told
Human Rights Watch that she did not want to relocate with her family to the
apartment offered to her outside of the center of Baku, explaining, “My
husband’s grandfather built our house; it has been in our family for over
100 years. I don’t want to take the apartment that they are offering us.
I prefer monetary compensation so that I can make my own choice about where to
live.”[188]

Yasnan Kirimova, an engineer who rented out her home at 193
Mirzagha Aliyev Street as a primary source of income, lost her property when
the authorities largely demolished the building in 2011, in violation of a
court injunction. Nevertheless she refuses to accept the authorities’
offer of an apartment outside of the city center. She told Human Rights Watch,
“They told me that since my home was greater than 60 square meters, I was
not eligible for compensation, but I could get an apartment in the outskirts of
Baku. I asked for money instead. I went there every day and begged for it. I do
not want a place on the outskirts.”[189]

Similarly, several apartment owners remaining in a building
at 5 Agil Guliev Street in the Bayil neighborhood told Human Rights Watch that
the authorities offered all homeowners in the building resettlement to new
apartments outside of the city center, but no monetary compensation.[190]
While some residents accepted the offer, those who insist on receiving
compensation remain in the building. One homeowner told Human Rights Watch,
“I told the authorities, ‘I don’t want your apartment [as
compensation]. I want to choose where I live myself. I chose this apartment
because of the views and the beauty.’”[191]

Homeowners also told Human Rights Watch that they did not
want to accept relocation offers because the government refuses to provide
ownership documents for the new apartments.[192]

Some homeowners facing resettlement also expressed serious
concerns about the quality of the workmanship in the new apartments.[193]
Emma Shirinova, whose home was demolished in August 2011 despite a court
injunction, described the following problems with the high-rise building where
she has been offered an apartment at 26 Aliar Aliyev Avenue: “The
basement was flooded with water. Even though the building was recently built,
many of the walls, including primary load-bearing walls, have cracks in them.
There are pieces of concrete falling off of the newly-built walls. In some
places the floors are cracked and peeling.”[194]
Shirinova photographed the new building and many of the problems with
construction and posted them to a website she created about her case.[195]

Fuad Zakiev, a pensioner, received a new two-room apartment
on Aliar Aliyev Street after the authorities demolished the building housing
his one-room apartment at 73 Heydar Aliyev Street in May 2010. Zakiev told
Human Rights Watch that there are numerous problems with his new apartment: the
plumbing system does not work properly; ventilation is poor; and the quality of
the interior finish work was very poor. In addition, he must pay higher monthly
utility fees.[196]

International Law regarding Compensation Mechanisms

The European Court of
Human Rights has made clear on repeated occasions that when depriving an
individual of his or her property, the authorities must strike a ‘fair
balance' between the demands of the public interest and the protection of the
individual's fundamental rights. The expropriation measure must not impose an
excessive burden on the individuals affected and the state cannot derive unjust
enrichment from the measure.[197]

The European Court has said that compensation terms are
relevant to assessing whether an expropriation measure respects the requisite
fair balance or whether it imposes a disproportionate burden on the individual
whose property has been expropriated. The court has held that there is a direct
link between the importance or compelling nature of the public interest pursued
and the compensation that should be provided in order to guarantee compliance
with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.[198]
The government must balance the scope and degree of importance of the public
interest against the nature and amount of compensation provided to the persons
concerned.

The European Court has
held that failing to pay compensation of a sum reasonably related to the value
of the property is an excessive interference with an individual's rights. In
addition, in many cases of expropriation, the only appropriate sum deemed to be
“reasonably related to the value of the property” will in fact be
full compensation—that is the market price of the property, plus costs or
losses incurred as a result of the expropriation.[199]

The Baku authorities’ mechanisms and proposals for
monetary compensation, in particular the fact that it is based on a single rate
for all properties, irrespective of use, condition or any other factors per
square meter, therefore violate Azerbaijan's obligations under the European
Convention.[200]
The Azerbaijani authorities are not meeting the ‘fair balance' between
state needs and the protection of the individual's right to property and
applicable human rights standards.

VI. Protection and Redress

One component of a fair
and transparent expropriation process is the existence of a mechanism for
resolving grievances.Such a mechanism should ensure that those affected
by expropriation have the opportunity to register grievances and that those
grievances are addressed in a clear and transparent manner. Articles 6 and 13
of the European Convention on Human Rights respectively, the rights of access
to court and to an effective remedy, require that any individual whose property
rights are impacted be able to vindicate their rights before such a mechanism.[201]Under
Azerbaijan’s national laws, property owners may appeal to court to
challenge the government’s expropriation and compensation mechanisms,
including by seeking court injunctions to stop the expropriations and
demolitions.[202]

However, the government has pursued evictions and
demolitions in blatant violation of court orders or when court cases are still
pending, raising serious questions as to whether the courts can provide an
effective means of redress. In addition, court processes have been plagued by
unnecessary delays as a result of the authorities’ failure to appear for
court hearings and an absence of time limits on cases heard in the
newly-established economic administrative courts.

Demolition of Homes in Violation of
Injunctions and Despite Pending Lawsuits

Lawyers and property owners in Baku told Human Rights Watch
that they have appealed to local courts in attempts to secure property rights,
protect properties from demolition, and secure fair compensation. In many cases
lawyers have sought, and won, injunctions prohibiting the Baku City Executive
Authority from pursuing expropriation or demolition of a property pending
further review by the courts.

However, in several cases documented by Human Rights Watch
the authorities demolished homes even when property owners have been able to
secure such court injunctions. For example, Leyla Yunus obtained a court
injunction on May 18, 2011, but her home was demolished on August 11.
Similarly, as described in detail above, the authorities destroyed the home of
Emma Shirinova on August 26, 2011, the same day that an appeals court upheld a
June 22, 2011 Administrative-Economic Court decision to issue an injunction
prohibiting demolition or any action creating obstacles to use of the home.[203]
The authorities also partially destroyed the home of Yasnan Kirimova on August
12, 2011, despite a May 2011 court injunction.[204]

In addition, in a number of other cases documented by Human
Rights Watch, the authorities demolished homes despite homeowners’
appeals to court and pending a final court decision.[205] For
example, Khajibaba Azimov, a property owner on A. Topchubashov Street, appealed
to a district court in April 2010 to protect his right to property and to
receive compensation at market value. In response to this suit, the Baku City
Executive Authority filed a number of counter suits over the following months,
for example claiming that the plaintiff's suit should have been filed in a
different district. The case was postponed numerous times because
representatives from the Baku City Executive Authority repeatedly failed to
appear in court.[206]

Despite the pending court decision, on December 30, 2010 the
Baku authorities evicted Azimov and his family and demolished the building
housing his apartment, as described above. A final court decision was issued
only in March 2011, 11 months after the original suit was filed. The court
rejected Azimov’s claims, and he accepted compensation at the 1,500 manat
(US$1,900) per square meter rate in May 2011.[207] As
described above, other property owners, including Sevinj Zainalova, Ismail
Bagvanov, and Malik Aliyev, similarly told Human Rights Watch their properties
were destroyed despite pending court cases that they had filed.

Lawyers have also unsuccessfully petitioned Baku’s
Nasimi District Court and the Baku Administrative-Economic Court no.1 seeking
decisions to find the 2008 and 2011 mayoral orders authorizing the
expropriations, evictions and demolitions in central Baku illegal under
Azerbaijani law. None of these lawsuits has been successful.[208]

Excessive Delays in Trials Related to
Property Claims

Lawyers and property owners told Human Rights Watch that
court proceedings have been plagued with repeated delays, most often as a
result of the failure of the respondents, in most cases the Baku City Executive
Authority, the State Committee on Property, or both, to appear at scheduled
hearings.For example, beginning in August 2011, Shovket and Ismail
Bagvanov, whose home was demolished in December 2010, filed a lawsuit in August
2010 seeking additional compensation above the 1,500 manat (US$1,900) rate.
From the initial hearing through the appeals process, the courts held seven
hearings in the Bagvanovs’ case but the authorities were present at only
one.[209]

While judges have the option of deciding a case in the
absence of one of the parties, lawyers representing clients in cases
challenging the government’s expropriations and demolitions told Human
Rights Watch that judges simply reschedule the hearings for a later date, and
do so repeatedly.[210]

Under Azerbaijani law, courts must review cases within
“a reasonable period,” but the law does not define what a
“reasonable period” should be,[211] and there is no legal
remedy for plaintiffs whose cases are repeatedly delayed, which constitutes a
denial of an effective remedy.[212] Lawyer
Fuad Agaev told Human Rights Watch that courts hear 90 to 95 percent of most
cases he has worked on within 30 days, and a lengthy review might last up to
three months. However, his cases involving expropriations have dragged on for
seven or eight months, without explanation. In some cases hearings are drawn
out so long that courts issue rulings only after demolitions have taken place.[213]

This practice of the courts renders recourse to the courts
ineffective and as such a violation of both Articles 6 and 13 of the ECHR.

Complaints to Other State Agencies

Property owners have also submitted complaints regarding the
unlawful expropriation of their property to a number of government agencies,
including the Prosecutor General's Office, the Internal Affairs Ministry, the
Baku City Executive Authority, and the presidential administration. In only a
few cases have homeowners received responses.[214] As
described above, Leyla Yunus received a response from the Baku City Executive
Authority in September 2011 offering her compensation for her property which
the authorities had demolished the month before. Some homeowners have also
appealed to local television and newspapers [215] and others have
protested in front of the presidential administration[216] or
the Baku City Executive Authority.[217]

One lawyer, Nizami
Bagirov, told Human Rights Watch that in August 2011 he filed a number of
requests and complaints to government agencies, including the Cabinet of
Ministers, the Baku City Executive Authority, and the presidential
administration, and to the district executive authority, but as this report
went to print he had still received no response.[218]

Lawyer Fuad Agaev told Human Rights Watch that he has also
filed numerous complaints with a court after clients have already lost their
homes, petitioning for their possessions to be returned to them or compensated
for and for clients to receive moral compensation for their losses, but these
cases have also not yet been heard on their merits.[219]

VII. The Role of Azerbaijan’s International
Partners

International actors engaged with Azerbaijan, including the
European Union (EU), the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe
(OSCE), the United States (US), the Council of Europe, the World Bank, the
Asian Development Bank (ADB), the European Bank for Reconstruction and
Development (EBRD), and the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), should encourage
the Azerbaijani government to cease expropriations, forced evictions, and
demolitions until they can be carried out in a fair and transparent manner,
consistent with Azerbaijani national law and international human rights law,
and ensure fair compensation to those evicted.

International and regional institutions and
Azerbaijan’s bilateral partners have criticized Azerbaijan’s human
rights record on a number of areas including the right to freedom of expression
and assembly.[220]
Starting in 2011 they began to express concern about evictions and house
demolitions, as indicated below. However, the Azerbaijani government has
continued these practices despite statements of concern, without facing any
consequences from these international and regional institutions. Some analysts
have asserted that this may in part be due to the fact that these partners
prioritize the country’s geostrategic importance and hydrocarbon wealth
in their relations with the government.

Sustained pressure and clear benchmarks for remedying human
rights violations are needed if Azerbaijan’s partners are to succeed in
persuading the Azerbaijani government to respect fundamental rights and
liberties.

Multilateral development banks, including the World Bank,
the ADB, and the EBRD have maintained ties with the Azerbaijani government
despite the worsening human rights situation and ongoing forced evictions and
demolitions and have not publicly raised concerns about these rights abuses.

As described in detail below, European Broadcasting Union
(EBU), which oversees the Eurovision Song Contest, sought explanations from the
government of Azerbaijan regarding evictions and demolitions related to
construction near the Baku Crystal Hall, the venue to be used for the contest
in May 2012. The EBU has stated that it sees no connection between the expropriations,
evictions, and demolitions and the construction in the National Flag Square
area and is therefore not seeking any assurances from the government related to
human rights abuses in the area. Instead, the EBU has emphasized the
“non-political” nature of the event and distanced itself from the
controversy. In a January 2012 letter to Human Rights Watch, the EBU stated,
“[W]e try to keep the Eurovision Song Contest as apolitical as possible.
Its purpose is to inspire, entertain, and unify the millions of people who
enjoy it. As we see [it] the Song Contest is a force for good. It turns
attention to countries that otherwise go largely undiscussed and puts them at
the heart of the debate.”[221]

Criticism
of Expropriations, Evictions, and Demolitions

Although the government has been carrying out its campaign
of expropriations, forced evictions, and demolitions since 2008,
Azerbaijan’s international partners publicly expressed concerns about the
related rights violations only in August 2011, after the demolition of Leyla
and Arif Yunus’ property.

On August 16, 2011 the UN high commissioner for human rights
criticized the destruction and called on the government to ensure safe working
conditions for human rights defenders.[222] Also on August 16 the
EU objected to the demolition and on September 1, the US Mission to the OSCE
similarly objected.[223]

In observations published in September 2011, Council of
Europe Human Rights Commissioner Thomas Hammarberg stated that he “had
called upon the [Azerbaijani] authorities to halt forced evictions” and
was particularly concerned about the demolition of Leyla Yunus’ property.[224]
Hammarberg called on the government to investigate and remedy the situation.
“Responsibility for this illegal action—which contravened a court
order—should be established, and the persons affected should at the very
least obtain adequate compensation for the loss of their property,” he
said.[225]

The
Crucial Role of the European Union and the United States

The EU and the US are key partners for Azerbaijan and are
well positioned to leverage their close political and economic ties to secure
meaningful human rights reforms. Azerbaijan has been developing an increasingly
close relationship with the EU since the 1999 Partnership and Cooperation
Agreement established a legal framework for EU-Azerbaijan relations. The EU and
Azerbaijan are currently negotiating an Association Agreement, begun in July
2010, which promises even closer political and economic ties. Brussels has a
unique and timely opportunity to set clear benchmarks on human rights by formulating
concrete, measurable improvements the Azerbaijani authorities should implement
as part of the relationship. Among such improvements should be addressing human
rights violations in the context of any expropriations and evictions, which the
EU should make an explicit requirement for closer relations.

The United States considers Azerbaijan as a strategic
partner. Azerbaijan provides its airspace for the transfer of coalition troops
to Afghanistan; supports US efforts to combat terrorism and the proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction; and is a key source for diversifying and
securing global energy supply.[226]
The US provided US$28 million in assistance to Azerbaijan in 2010, for, inter
alia, “the development of democratic institutions of government and
civil society to promote public participation, combat corruption and strengthen
the rule of law.”[227]
The US has frequently spoken out about human rights abuses in Azerbaijan, including
on property rights, but can also demonstrate further commitment to advancing
human rights in Azerbaijan by conditioning engagement and assistance on
meaningful human rights improvements.

Multilateral
Development Banks Silent

Despite playing a significant role in Azerbaijan, the World
Bank, the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the European Bank for Reconstruction
and Development (EBRD) have failed to publicly raise concerns about the
Azerbaijani government’s ongoing practices of forced evictions and
demolitions.[228]

The World Bank, the ADB, and the EBRD are well aware of the
risks posed by relocating large numbers of people. This is illustrated by each
of the banks’ own specific guidelines on involuntary resettlement that
set out criteria that the development partner (in this case Azerbaijan) must
follow where projects using World Bank, ADB, or EBRD funds involve
resettlement.[229] These
multilateral development banks’ institutional commitment to these
practices is undermined by not raising concerns about these abuses even when
they occur outside of their directly funded projects.

As multilateral lenders with significant programs in
Azerbaijan, these institutions should press the Azerbaijani government to cease
these forced evictions and demolitions, to abide by national and international
standards in carrying out any resettlements, and to commission independent
investigations to determine whether donor funds are directly or indirectly
supporting these abuses. The World Bank, ADB, and EBRD should work with the
Azerbaijani government to institute country-wide practices of resettlement that
comply with national and international standards.

The
European Broadcasting Union

The Eurovision Song Contest is governed broadly by the
European Broadcasting Union (EBU),[230]
which has appointed a seven-person reference group to “control and
guide” the yearly event.[231]
The EBU, as an association of media organizations, has an explicit mandate to
advance freedom of expression and information[232] and
issued a strongly-worded declaration on the subject at its 64th
General Assembly, held in Baku in July 2010.[233] It considers the
Eurovision Song Contest to be a strictly “apolitical” event,
however,[234]
and has sought to distance itself from the controversy associated with evictions
and demolitions near Baku Crystal Hall by saying it is not linked with the
contest itself and should have no effect on the Eurovision “brand.”[235]

In correspondence with Human Rights Watch the EBU elaborated
its position, stating that it “has seen no evidence linking any building
work to the Song Contest,” “did not require or request a
purpose-built venue,” and would have accepted to hold the song contest at
either of two existing venues also offered by the government.[236] Stressing
commitments it secured from the Azerbaijani government that it will uphold
media freedom and freedom of speech in connection with the song contest, the
EBU added that it would raise concerns with authorities “should [they] become
aware of any human rights abuses.”[237]

Speaking in similar
terms to the press about the controversy over Baku Crystal Hall two months
later, an EBU spokesperson indicated that they had inquired with the
authorities, who assured them that the construction of the venue was on
“a previously undeveloped site” and was part of a broader redevelopment
plan not tied to the Eurovision Song Contest. At the end of January 2012, the EBU event
supervisor, Sieste Bakker, said that the evictions in the Bayil neighborhood
were "not related to the construction of the Baku Crystal Hall"
because they were for the construction of a road several hundred meters away.[238]

Joergen Franck, director of television for the EBU, told
Human Rights Watch on January 26 that the EBU had received information from Azerbaijani
officials that those residents who were or who will be evicted in the area
adjacent to the National Flag Square are seeking to forge a false connection to
the Eurovision Song Contest.

He reiterated the EBU’s position that there is no
connection between the expropriations and the Eurovision Song Contest, and said
the people in the area would have been evicted even if the 2012 Eurovision Song
Contest were to be held elsewhere. “The EBU does not believe its brand
has been tainted by government actions or by articles in the press,” he
told Human Rights Watch. Franck said that although the EBU is seeking
explanations from the Azerbaijani government about development plans in the
area, the EBU would not be seeking assurances from the government about
addressing eviction-related abuses. Doing so, he said, would interfere with the
non-political character of the Eurovision Song Contest. Franck also said that organizations
could take advantage of the “bright spotlight” the Eurovision
contest was throwing on Azerbaijan in order to highlight human rights violations,
and that this was “a good thing.”[239]

It is indeed true that the road and park being built in the
National Flag Square area—and for which residents were evicted in order
to clear the area for construction—were planned before Azerbaijan won
Eurovision in 2011. However the timing of many of the evictions and the pace of
construction indicate that the government’s plans for the area accelerated
in light of Eurovision. Further, before the evictions sparked international
media coverage and before the EBU approved the Baku Crystal Hall as the event
venue, senior government officials were adamant that Baku Crystal Hall would be
completed in time for the 2012 Eurovision Song Contest. Human Rights Watch
believes that the push to quickly beautify the area and improve transport links
is therefore linked to the Eurovision Song Contest by proximity and the
accelerated rate of construction.

VIII.
Recommendations

To the Government of Azerbaijan,
including the Baku City Executive Authority and the State Committee on Property

Halt all further expropriations, evictions,
and demolitions until they can be carried out in a fair and transparent manner
and are consistent with Azerbaijani national law and international human rights
law.

Any future evictions of homeowners who
refuse to leave their properties should only be conducted in accordance with
Azerbaijani and international law. Any evictions should be regulated by a court
order and conducted with full respect for the bodily integrity and dignity of
those evicted.

The
authorities should in no circumstances begin to demolish or disassemble
buildings in which people continue to live.

Ensure protection of all private property
when carrying out evictions and demolitions.

Provide homeowners and property owners who
may lose their property for development with:

clear
information about the legal basis for the expropriation,

the
timing of the expropriation,

their
compensation and resettlement options, and

the
means of appealing decisions.

This
information should be provided in a timely manner.

Provide all property owners affected by
expropriation access to an effective complaint mechanism that addresses
grievances in a clear and transparent manner and a remedy. In accordance with
the right to an effective remedy guaranteed by article 13 of the European
Convention on Human Rights, an effective grievance mechanism should also
include compensation for harm.

Ensure that mechanisms to provide homeowners
with compensation for expropriated property are fair and transparent, with a
clear basis in law.

The Baku City Executive
Authority and the State Committee on Property should establish a mechanism
whereby each property affected by expropriation and demolition will be subject
to an independent appraisal and that compensation to individual property owners
accurately reflects the market value of each property.

The
compensation calculation for individual properties should take into account the
full and actual sale value of each property and is not dependent on one fixed
price.

The
compensation calculation should include the additional expenses established in
article 31.7 of the Housing Code.

Expropriation
of properties should not serve to deny property owners their property rights. If
property owners are resettled, they should be assured full title to the new properties.

Housing
designated for resettlement must comply with all housing code and other
relevant standards for safety, hygiene, and engineering integrity.

Publish all relevant legal acts and other
official documents regarding city development plans, and conduct awareness
campaigns about any city development plans.

Hold regular, well-publicized public
meetings where the plans for city development are discussed and open to public
comment. Consider fully public concerns and ideas when developing and realizing
development plans.

State officials should not engage in hostile
and intimidating behavior.

Law enforcement officials should receive
appropriate professional training on how to respect the rights of homeowners,
residents, monitors, and the public in general when carrying out law
enforcement actions in support of evictions.

To the ProsecutorGeneral’s Office of Azerbaijan

Initiate an independent inquiry into why the
expropriations and demolitions in central Baku have been allowed to take place
in the manner described in this report given that they clearly violate
Azerbaijan's constitution and national laws and international human rights law.

As
part of this inquiry, the authorities should investigate all violations of the
right to private property, including the broken, ruined, and missing property
removed from homes and apartments as a result of forcible evictions.

Investigate
the role of the Ministry of Interior officials in ordering and carrying out
evictions of residents from their homes and detentions of residents as a
component of the eviction.

Investigate
violations of the right to private and family life and instances of inhuman and
degrading treatment.

Provide compensation for those evicted in
ways that violated their rights and failed to respect their safety and dignity.

To the European Broadcasting Union

While
the European Broadcasting Union (EBU)’s statedposition is that the evictions taking place in the vicinity of
the Baku Crystal Hall are not linked to the Eurovision Song Contest, the EBU
nevertheless should utilize its engagement with the Azerbaijani authorities
to:

Call on the Azerbaijani authorities to ensure
that no further human rights abuses take place with respect to Azerbaijan’s
preparation to host the Eurovision contest, including in the vicinity of the
Baku Crystal Hall.

Call on the Azerbaijani authorities to resolve,
in a fair and transparent manner, all complaints related to expropriations,
evictions, and demolitions near the Baku Crystal Hall.

Make public all measures taken to engage
with the government to press for an end to abuses.

To
the European Broadcasting Union Members

Call on the EBU, including the Eurovision
Reference Group, to make clear with the Azerbaijani authorities that expropriations,
evictions, and demolitions near the Baku Crystal Hall risk casting a shadow
over the Eurovision Song Contest and should be halted.

Call on the EBU, including the Eurovision
Reference Group, to make clear with the Azerbaijani authorities that no further
human rights abuses should take place with respect to Azerbaijan’s
preparation to host the Eurovision contest, including in the vicinity of the
Baku Crystal Hall, and that the authorities should resolve, in a fair and
transparent manner, all complaints related to expropriations, evictions, and
demolitions near the Baku Crystal Hall.

To
Azerbaijan’s Bilateral Partners, including the European Union, individual
European States, and the United States

Insist that the Azerbaijani authorities halt
all further expropriations, evictions, and demolitions until they can be
carried out in a fair and transparent manner and are consistent with
Azerbaijani national law and Azerbaijan’s international human rights
obligations.

Insist that the government of Azerbaijan
ensure a fair and transparent expropriation and a lawful compensation process
for homeowners who lose their homes.

Make
Azerbaijan’s addressing these concerns an explicit requirement in the
context of enhanced relations, including through the Association Agreements
with the EU and in the context of deepening engagement with and assistance from
the US.

Provide technical assistance as necessary to
the Baku City Executive Authority, the State Committee on Property, and law
enforcement organs to ensure proper training in the conduct of expropriations
for legitimate state needs and evictions of homeowners that respect human
rights and human dignity.

Continue to support nongovernmental
organizations and activists documenting illegal expropriations, evictions and
house demolitions.

To The Council of Europe

The Committee of Ministers should urge the
Azerbaijani authorities to implement the recommendations by the Commissioner
for Human Rights Thomas Hammarberg, outlined in his September 2011 observations,
which included recommendations regarding the government’s campaign of
expropriations and evictions.

To
the World Bank, Asian Development Bank, and the
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development

Call on the Azerbaijani government to halt
all further expropriations, evictions, and demolitions until they can be
carried out in a fair and transparent manner and are consistent with
Azerbaijani national law and Azerbaijan’s international human rights
obligations.

Ensure that no form of support, whether
financial, diplomatic, or technical, is used to assist in forced evictions,
expropriations, or demolitions that contravene national and international law.

Do not undertake new programs in Azerbaijan
that may present a risk of forced evictions until the government demonstrates
that all resettlements are carried out in a fair and transparent manner and are
consistent with Azerbaijani national law and Azerbaijan’s international
human rights obligations.

Human Rights Watch expresses its gratitude to the homeowners
who shared their stories with us. We also thank the lawyers, experts, and nongovernmental
organizations in Azerbaijan—in particular the Free Economy Association—who contributed to this
report with their time, expertise, and information. Human Rights Watch also
gratefully acknowledges the expertise and assistance of Vugar Gojayev, country
coordinator of Azerbaijan Human Rights House.

[9]Azerbaijan’s
opposition is marginalized as a result of many years of restrictions on
assembly, harassment of political figures, ruling-party incumbents’ abuse
of government resources, and other violations during election periods. In
advance of the 2005 Parliamentary elections, three opposition parties –
the Popular Front Party (PFP), the Musavat Party and the Azerbaijan Democratic
Party (ADP) for the first time created a block, Azadlig [Freedom], but failed
to achieve notable success, not least because of restrictions on their ability
to campaign and election-day violence and fraud. Today the opposition holds
only a handful of the parliament’s 125 seats. See Human Rights Watch,
“Azerbaijan Elections and After.”

[16]The largest oil producer in the world is Saudi Arabia, which
produced about 10.8 million barrels of oil per day (bopd) in 2010. In 2010
Eurasia produced about 13.2 million bopd, with Russia producing 10.2 million
bopd followed by Kazakhstan with 1.6 million bopd. Azerbaijan accounted for
about 7.6 percent of the region’s 2010 oil production. United States
Energy Information Administration (USEIA), “International Energy
Statistics,”http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=5&pid=53&aid=1&cid=regions&syid=2010&eyid=2010&unit=TBPD
(accessed October 22, 2011).

[20]Ibid., p. 21. Azerbaijan has reserves of seven billion barrels
of crude oil and 30 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. As cited in USEIA,
“Azerbaijan: Analysis,”
http://www.eia.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=AJ (accessed October 20, 2011).
Natural gas prices are typically far lower than for oil so revenues from sales
of natural gas will not be sufficient to offset anticipated declines in oil
revenues as the reserves are depleted.

[24]EITI, “What is the EITI?”
http://eiti.org/eiti (accessed October 21, 2011). Today, the initiative is
governed a biannual global conference; a 20-member board representing
government, industry, and civil society; an independent secretariat based in
Oslo; and the EITI Multi-Donor Trust Fund, which is managed by the World Bank.
EITI, “Governance Structure,” http://eiti.org/about/governance
(accessed October 21, 2011).

[25]To become
compliant with the EITI, states must publish a national report disclosing
company payments and government revenues from the extractives sector, and
complete an external review of their compliance with the initiative's other
basic standards, a process known as “validation.” EITI, “EITI
Fact Sheet,” http://eiti.org/ document/factsheet (accessed January 20,
2012). Azerbaijan must successfully complete another validation (under somewhat
strengthened rules) by early 2014 to remain compliant. See EITI,
“Azerbaijan,” http://eiti.org/Azerbaijan, and EITI, “The 2011
edition of the EITI Rules,” http://eiti.org/news-events/2011-edition-eiti-rules
(both accessed January 20, 2012).

[26] “Statement of the Coalition
of NGOs for ‘Improving Transparency in Extracting
Industries,’” Baku, June 6, 2011,
http://eiti.org/files/Statement%20of%20EITI%20NGO%20Coalition%20in%20Azerbaijan_June%2008_2011.pdf
(accessed January 20, 2012).

[27]The
IMF’s late-2011 recommendations to the government of Azerbaijan call for
“enhancing the quality of public investment spending,” noting that
“in particular the selection and appraisal of investment projects
requires improvement.” IMF, “Statement at the Conclusion of the
IMF’s 2011 Article IV Consultation Mission to Azerbaijan,” Press
Release no. 11/389, November 2, 2011,
http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pr/2011/pr11389.htm (accessed December 2,
2011). In a summary document, the IMF was more direct: “There is
considerable scope for trimming capital expenditures.” IMF Public
Information Notice, “IMF Executive Board Concludes 2011 Article IV
Consultation with Azerbaijan,” January 18, 2012,
www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pn/2012/pn1202.htm (accessed January 20, 2012).

[28]European
Broadcasting Union (EBU), “About the EBU,”
http://www.ebu.ch/en/about/index.php (accessed October 26, 2011). Each
participating country is represented by one of its domestic broadcasters, which
in turn sponsors an act. Each participating country has its own method for
choosing the song it will submit. These typically take place in March. During
the subsequent Eurovision Week, acts perform live and on-air in the host city,
and viewers in participating countriesvote for their favorites, first in
semi-finals and later in a final. Each country awards points to songs/countries
based on the votes—and the country with the highest number of points in
the final is the winner. Eurovision Song Contest, “National Selections”
and “The Shows,” http://www.eurovision.tv/page/baku-2012/about
(accessed October 26, 2011).

[30]Jack Ewing,
“Uniting a Continent through a Wacky Song Contest,” The New York
Times, May 12, 2011,
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/13/arts/13iht-eurovision13.html?pagewanted=all
(accessed October 26, 2011).

[34]Eurovision Song Contest, “Host Broadcaster
in 2012,”
http://www.eurovision.tv/page/baku-2012/about/organisers/host-broadcaster
(accessed October 26, 2011). Ictimai TV was established after the adoption of
the 2004 Law on Public Television and Radio Broadcasting. Ictimai TV, “Our
Background,” April 16, 2009,
http://en.itv.az/aboutus/ourbackground/37.html (accessed November 6, 2011).

[36]Regarding the
fall-back option of using the Heydar Aliyev Sport and Exhibition Complex, Mr.
Rahimov stated, “It wouldn’t be right to welcome European guests to
the Concert and Sports Complex, which was built a long time ago and
doesn’t meet modern standards.” “Tofiq Bahramov Stadium
Baku’s Plan B for Eurovision,” December 13, 2011, News.Az,
http://www.news.az/articles/eurovision/50805 (retrieved December 18, 2011).

[37]Human Rights
Watch researchers have viewed and photographed the site on repeated visits.

[40]Baku City Executive Authority order no. 71 of
February 15, 2011 and Human Rights Watch
visual observation, January 29, 2012. Because the Baku City Executive Authority
did not respond to Human Rights Watch’s requests to meet, we could not
confirm how the authorities plan to use the space between the coastal road and
the National Flag Square.

[42]“Ali Hasanov: ‘The measures taken around the State
Flag Square are unrelated to Eurovision Song Contest and preparation of
corresponding venue for the event,’” APA News,
http://en.apa.az/news.php?id=162942, January 4, 2012,(accessed January 5, 2012).

[43]See for example the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, Article 17, "(1) Everyone has the right to
own property alone as well as in association with others. (2) No one shall be
arbitrarily deprived of his property"; European Convention on Human
Rights, Article 1, Protocol 1 “(1) Every natural or legal person is
entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived
of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions
provided for by law and by the general principles of international law”;
American Convention on Human Rights, Article 21, "(1) Everyone has the
right to the use and enjoyment of his property. … (2) No one shall be
deprived of his property except upon payment of just compensation, for reasons
of public utility or social interest, and in the cases and according to the
forms established by law”; African Charter on Human and Peoples’
Rights, Article 14, "The right to property shall be guaranteed. It may
only be encroached upon in the interest of public need or in the general
interest of the community and in accordance with the provisions of appropriate
laws."

[44]European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights
and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), European Treaty Series No. 5, art. 11.
Azerbaijan became a party to the ECHR on April 15, 2002.

[45]Constitution of
the Republic of Azerbaijan, November 12, 1995, with amendments, article 29.

[46]Law of the Republic of
Azerbaijan on Expropriation of Land for State Needs, no. 987-IIQ, April 20, 2010,
article 3. See also: Civil Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan, no. 779
-IG, December 28, 1999 (entered into force May 26, 2000), article 157.9.
Article 203 of the Civil Code allows for certain circumstances, unrelated to
state needs, when a property owner may be compulsorily dispossessed of his or
her property, such as: forfeiture of property for liabilities; expropriation of
property which may not belong to the given person under the law; the alienation
of immovable property in connection with purchase of a land plot; purchase of
non-maintained cultural valuables; requisition; and confiscation.

[47]Civil Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan, art. 157.9, as
amended by order of the President of Azerbaijan, no. 386, of August 25, 2000,
Housing Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan, article 31.

[48] Human Rights Watch interview with Bashkhanam
Abbasov, January 26, 2012 and Human Rights
Watch interviews with several homeowners at the apartment building at 5 Agil
Guliyev Street, January 2012.

[54] Ibid. The role of the companies in the
forced eviction and demolition, as described here based on
Zainalova’s interview with Human Rights Watch, was also the basis for a
lawsuit her family filed—and won—for violation of property rights.
Human Rights Watch telephone interview with Fuad Agayev, February 14, 2012.
For details on the lawsuit, see further below.

[57] Human Rights Watch interview with Sevinj
Zainalova, January 25, 2012. Although Baku City Executive Authority order
no.85 of March 9, 2010 authorized Klass AZ KO to develop a shopping center on
the land occupied by the 66th quarter on Mikhail Useinov Avenue, which was
renamed Neftchilar Avenue. It does not specifically name 61 Neftchilar Avenue .
Baku City Executive Authority, Order no. 85, March 9, 2010, on file with Human
Rights Watch. An April 26, 2011 letter from the Sabayil District Housing
Department to several residents of 61 Neftchilar Avenue states that the
“Baku City Executive Authority has issued order no. 85, dated March 9,
2010 to demolish 61 Neftchilar Street for a shopping center to be built by
Klass AZ KO. The demolitions of residential and non-residential properties
and evictions … will be done at the expense of Klass AZ KO.” Letter
on file with Human Rights Watch.

[58]Human
Rights Watch telephone interview with Fuad Agaev, February 14, 2012. Article
35of the Housing Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan provides that apartment
owners enjoy shared rights to the land on which the building has been built.

[63]Human Rights Watch interview
with Ali A., Baku, June 17, 2011. Ali A’s exact address and the exact
date of his eviction are not revealed to protect his identity.

[64]Baku City Executive
Authority order no. 76, dated February 16, 2011 indicates that structures on
Shamsi Badalbeili Street will be demolished to make way for a garden park
complex. Application to the European Court of Human Rights under Article 34 of
the European Convention on Human Rights and Rules 45 and 47 of the Rules of
Court, submitted October 18, 2011.

[69]Letter from
Eldar Yunusov, Representative of the Resettlement Commission of the Baku
Executive Authority, no. Y-5/9 to Arif and Leyla Yunus August 25, 2011, on file
with Human Rights Watch. The letter from the Baku City Executive Authority to
Human Rights Watch also states that the Baku City Executive Authority allegedly
attempted to contact the Yunuses regarding compensation prior to the
demolition.

[71]Letter no. Y-5/9
from Eldar Yunusov, Representative of the Resettlement Commission of the Baku
Executive Authority, to Arif and Leyla Yunus August 25, 2011.

[72]The Yunuses had
previously lodged the suit with another court. On February 8, 2011, they filed
a suit in the Nasimi District Court against the Baku City Executive Authority
and the Nasimi District Authority. The court refused to hear the case, stating
that the recently-created Administrative-Economic Court had jurisdiction over
the issue. The Yunuses unsuccessfully appealed the Nasimi District Court
decision to the Baku Appeals Court and the Supreme Court, which similarly
refused to hear the case on its merits. The Baku Court of Appeals decision was
delivered on March 31, 2011 and the Supreme Court of Azerbaijan decision on
June 24, 2011.

[73]The complaint alleged violations of articles article 186
(deliberate destruction or damage of property), article 306 (willful
non-implementation of a court decision by a public official), 308 (abuseof authority), 309 (exceeding
authority) of theCriminal Code of the Azerbaijan Republic, December 30, 1999
(entered into force on September 1, 2000).

[76]See e.g. Menteş and Others v. Turkey, judgment of
28 November 28, 1997, Reports 1997-VIII, para. 89 in which the Court
explained that Article 13, “imposes, without prejudice to any other
remedy available under the domestic system, an obligation on the respondent
State to carry out a thorough and effective investigation of allegations
brought to its attention of deliberate destruction by its agents of the homes
and possessions of individuals. Accordingly, where anindividual hasan
arguable claim that his or her home and possessions have been purposely
destroyed by agents of the State, the notion of an “effective
remedy” entails, in addition to the payment of compensation where
appropriate, a thorough and effective investigation capable of leading to the
identification and punishment of those responsible and including effective
access for the complainant to the investigative procedure. See also Ayder and
Others v. Turkey, no. 23656/94, judgment of January 8, 2004, para 98.

[78]Application to the European
Court of Human Rights under Article 34 of the European Convention on Human
Rights and Rules 45 and 47 of the Rules of Court, submitted October 18, 2011.
The complaint alleges violations of article 3 (prohibition on inhuman and
degrading treatment and torture), article 6 (right to a fair trial), article 8
(right to private and family life), article 11 (right to freedom of
association), article 1 of protocol 1 (right to peaceful enjoyment of
possessions), article 2 of protocol 4 (the right to liberty of movement and
freedom to choose one’s residence), article 13 (the right to an effective
remedy), article 14 (right to be free from discrimination), and article 18
(limitation on the use of restrictions on rights) of the European Convention.

[81]See
McLeod v. the United Kingdom, judgment of September 23, 1998, Reports 1998-VII,
in which the Court found a violation of the right to respect for the home of
Mrs. McLeod, when two police officers entered her home to assist her ex-husband
in removing his property to which he was entitled to by a court order. In assessing
whether entry of the police into Mrs. McLeod’s home struck a fair balance
between her right to respect for her home, and the prevention of disorder and
crime, the court noted that the police had not taken any steps to verify
whether the court had given her ex-husband the right to enter her home and
remove his property. The Court held that the police should not have taken it
for granted that he was entitled to do so and that the means employed by the
police officers—entering her home without permission—was
disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued, and a violation of her rights.

[108]In addition to
the cases described here, Human Rights Watch also interviewed two other
residents in this neighborhood in November 2011 who described the ongoing
demolitions of their apartment buildings while they remain in their apartments.
Human Rights Watch interviews with Larisa Mammedli, and with Tamilla Mamedova,
November 8, 2011.

[128]Three of the orders were obtained by Human Rights
Watch and are on file. One lawyer interviewed by Human Rights Watch submitted
requests to the Baku City Executive Authority to make the orders public, but
received no response.. Human Rights Watch interview with Nizami Bagirov,
September 28, 2011. Others have challenged the orders in court, unsuccessfully.Human
Rights Watch interviews with Fuad Agayev, and with Sevinj Aliyeva and Turan
Bahadur-beyli, September 27, 2011.

[130]Constitution of
Azerbaijan, articles 29 and 33. Article 33 states: Every Person shall have the
right to the inviolability of residence. With the exception of cases specified
by Law or Court no one shall be authorized to enter the Apartment against the
will of the resident.”

[131] “No one
shall be deprived of his/her residence. The State shall give loans for the
construction of houses and blocks apartments, shall take measures in to
implement the right to residence. Constitution of Azerbaijan, article 43.

[133]The
guidelines note that the “prohibition of forced evictions does not apply
to evictions carried out both in accordance with the law and in conformity with
the provisions of international human rights treaties,” Report of the
Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an
adequate standard of living, Miloon Kothari, United Nations Human Rights
Council Fourth Session, A/HRC/4/18, February 5, 2007, annex I, “Basic Principles
and Guidelines on Development-Based Evictions and Displacement,” para. 4,
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G07/106/28/PDF/G0710628.pdf?OpenElement
(accessed January 6, 2012).

[135]UN Committee on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 4, The Right to
Adequate Housing The Right to Adequate Housing (Art. 11 (1) of the Covenant),
U.N. Doc. E/1992/23 (1992), para. 8.

[136]Report of the
Special Rapporteur on adequate housing, annex 1, paras. 6 and 21.

[141]See
inter alia. Iatridis v. Greece, judgment March 25, 1999, ECHR 1999-II, para.
62, in which the court found that an interference with property which is manifestly
in breach of national law is accordingly a violation of the European Convention
on Human Rights.

[142]Constitution of
the Republic of Azerbaijan, November 12, 1995, with amendments, article 29.

[143]Law
of the Republic of Azerbaijan on Expropriation of Land for State Needs, no.
987-IIQ, April 20, 2010, article 3. See also: Civil Code of the Republic of
Azerbaijan, no. 779 -IG, December 28, 1999 (entered into force May 26,
2000), article 157.9. Article 203 of the Civil Code allows for certain
circumstances, unrelated to state needs, when a property owner may be
compulsorily dispossessed of his or her property, such as: forfeiture of
property for liabilities; expropriation of property which may not belong to the
given person under the law; the alienation of immovable property in connection
with purchase of a land plot; purchase of non-maintained cultural valuables;
requisition; and confiscation.

[152]Baku City
Executive Authority, order no. 71, February 15, 2011, and Baku City Executive
Authority, order no. 243, May 31, 2011. Order no. 243 as cited in an undated
notification to residents in the Bayil neighborhood next to the National Flag
Square regarding expropriation and demolition of their properties. The
notification indicates that the authorities will expropriate and demolish
properties located at 7-9 Agil Guliyev, 2 Fathi Khoshginabi, 9Aidin Nasirov,
and 3 and 10/12 Elchin and Vusal Gadjibabaevy in the Sabail district. On file
with Human Rights Watch.

[153]Baku
City Executive Authority, order no. 71, February 15, 2011, on file with Human Rights Watch.

[154]Notification to
residents in the Bayil neighborhood next to the National Flag Square, undated,
on file with Human Rights Watch.

[155]The order
names the 66th quarter on Mikhail Useinov Avenue, which was renamed
Neftchilar Avenue. Baku City Executive Authority, Order no. 85, March 9, 2010,
on file with Human Rights Watch.

[156] Letter from the Sabayil District Housing
Department to several residents of 61 Neftchilar Avenue, April 26, 2011,
on file with Human Rights Watch.

[158]See articles 5 and 8 of the Articles on
the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, which provide
that, “The conduct of a person or entity which is not an organ of the
State under article 4 but which is empowered by the law of that State to
exercise elements of the governmental authority shall be considered an act of
the State under international law, provided the person or entity is acting in
that capacity in the particular instance; and that, “The conduct of a
person or group of persons shall be considered an act of a State under
international law if the person or group of persons is in fact acting on the
instructions of, or under the direction or control of, that State in carrying
out the conduct”, respectively. The text of the Responsibility of States
for Internationally Wrongful Acts Text was adopted by the International Law
Commission in 2001, see Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2001,
vol. II (Part Two) and UN Doc. A/RES/56/83 of January 28, 2001.

[160]“Yet
another Building Demolished because of the Presidential Administration,”
[in Azeri], Musavat, July 6, 2011,
http://www.musavat.com/new/G%C3%BCnd%C9%99m/103710-PREZ%C4%B0DENT%C4%B0N_%C4%B0QAM%C6%8FTGAHINA_G%C3%96R%C6%8F_DAHA_B%C4%B0R_B%C4%B0NA_S%C3%96K%C3%9CL%C3%9CR (accessed
February 16, 2012).

[161]European
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR),
213 U.N.T.S 222 entered into force September 3, 1953, as amended by Protocols Nos
3, 5, 8, and 11 which entered into force on September 21, 1970, December 20,
1971, January 1, 1990, and November 1, 1998, respectively, Protocol 1, article
1, paragraph 1. Azerbaijan became a party on April 15, 2002.

[167]UN Committee on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment No. 7, Forced Evictions
and the Right to Adequate Housing, (Sixteenth session, 1997), U.N.Doc.
E/1998/22, annex IV at 113 (1997).

[168]For example, in its November 23, 2011 letter to Human
Rights Watch, the Baku City Executive Authority claimed that the evictions in
the neighborhood behind the Heydar Aliyev Hall are taking place in accordance
with the law, insofar as the Baku City Executive Authority provides homeowners
with documents confirming their property rights and with compensation. Letter
from Rasim Guliev, Chief of Staff, Baku City Executive Authority, no. 7-4462/6
to Human Rights Watch, November 23, 2011.

[179] Baku City Executive Authority, order no.
243, May 31, 2011, as cited in an undated notification to residents in the
Bayil neighborhood next to the National Flag Square, on file with Human Rights
Watch.

[183]For example,
Human Rights Watch interviews with Rashida R., and with Shirin Rzaeva, June 17,
2011; with Elmira Ismailova, and with Zalika Aliyeva, September 26, 2011; with
Nelly Yusifzadeh, September 27, 2011; and with Victor and Iveta Karmonov,
September 30, 2011.

[184]Human Rights
Watch interview with Zalika Aliyeva, September 27, 2011. Her home is at 2 Fathi
Khoshginabi Street, building 16.

[199]See inter-alia,
The former King of Greece and Others v. Greece (just satisfaction), no.
25701/94, judgment of November 28, 2002, para. 78, and Scordino v. Italy (no.
1), no. 36813/97, judgment of March 29, 2006, ECHR 2006-V, para. 96 in which
the court notes that “in many cases of lawful expropriation, such as the
distinct expropriation of land with a view to building a road or for other
purposes “in the public interest,” only full compensation can be
regarded as reasonably related to the value of the property.”

[200]The fact that the Baku City Executive Authority conducts
the forced sales through private individuals does not relieve the authorities
of their obligations under the European Convention. These individuals are
treated as an agent of the state, and the Baku City Executive Authority, and
ultimately the government of Azerbaijan, bear full responsibility for these
individuals’ actions in carrying out these functions. International Law
Commission, Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally
Wrongful Acts, November 2001, Supplement No. 10 (A/56/10), chp.IV.E.1,
articles 5 and 8. As the European Court of Human Rights has affirmed, whether
agency is given to a private individual formally, as the Baku municipal
authorities have done, or informally “the acquiescence or connivance of
the authorities of a Contracting State in the acts of private individuals which
violate the Convention rights of other individuals within its jurisdiction may
engage the State's responsibility under the Convention.” European Court
of Human Rights, Cyprus v. Turkey,no. 25781/94, ECHR 2001-IV,
para. 81.

[201]Article 6 (1) provides that, “in the determination of his civil
rights and obligations … everyone is entitled to a fair and public
hearing within a reasonable time. In Sporrong and Lönnroth v. Sweden,
judgment of September 23, 1982, Series A no. 52, it was recognized that
“where the Convention right asserted by the individual is a “civil
right” recognised under domestic law– such as the right of property
– the protection afforded by Article 6 (1) will … be
available,” para. 88.

[202] Civil Code of the Republic of
Azerbaijan, article 157.4, and Housing Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan,
article 31.9.

[210]Human Rights Watch interviews with Fuad Agaev, December 10, 2011, and
interviews with Sevinj Aliyeva and Turan Bahadur-beyli, and with Shafa
Jamalzadeh, September 27, 2011.

[211]Administrative Code of the Republic of Azerbaijan, article 172.1.

[212]See for example Kudla v. Poland, No.
30210/96, judgment of October 26, 2000, para. 160, in which the Court, faced
with a “continuing accumulation of applications before it in which the
only, or principal, allegation is that of a failure to ensure a hearing within
a reasonable time in breach of Article 6 para. 1” held the absence of a
complaint mechanism about proceedings not happening in a reasonable time, was a
violation of requirement to provide an “effective remedy” underArticle 13.

[220]“OSCE
Media Freedom Representative Condemns Attack on Azerbaijani Journalist, Calls
Upon Government to Curb Violence Against the Media,” OSCE Press Release,
March 28, 2011, http://www.osce.org/fom/76228 (accessed December 20, 2011);
European Union, “Statement by the spokesperson of EU High Representative
Catherine Ashton on the Conviction of 14 Peaceful Demonstrators in
Azerbaijan,” Brussels, October 12, 2011, A406/11,
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/125043.pdf
(accessed December 20, 2011); EU, “Statement by the Spokesperson of EU
High Representative Catherine Ashton on Further Convictions of Peaceful
Demonstrators in Azerbaijan,” Brussels, October 8, 2011,
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/124990.pdf
(accessed December 20, 2011); EU, “Statement by High Representative
Catherine Ashton on Azerbaijan,” Brussels, May 20, 2011, A 194/11,
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/EN/foraff/122137.pdf
(accessed December 20, 2011).

[221] Letter from Ingrid Deltenre, Director
General, European Broadcasting Union, to Human Rights Watch, January 19, 2012.
Addressing the issues that are reflected in its mandate, the letter added,
“Our aspiration is to be an agent of change and I can assure you we do
use our institutional possibilities to improve media freedom and freedom of
expression in Azerbaijan.”

[223]“Local EU
Statement on Demolitions and Forced Evictions”, August 16, 2011,
http://www.eeas.europa.eu/delegations/azerbaijan/press_corner/all_news/news/2011/2011_08_12_local_statment_en.htm
(accessed December 20, 2011); “Statement on Demolition of IPD Offices in
Baku and Conviction of Activists,” As delivered by Deputy Chief of
Mission Gary Robbins to the Permanent Council, United States Mission to the
OSCE, Vienna, September 1, 2011,
http://photos.state.gov/libraries/osce/5/Sep2011/9-1-11_Azerbaijan_001.pdf
(accessed December 20, 2011).

[224]Thomas
Hammarberg, “Observations on the Human Rights Situation in Azerbaijan:
Freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of peaceful assembly,”
Council of Europe, September 29, 2011, CommDH(2011)33,
https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1839497 (accessed November 8, 2011).

[226]For an overview
of the US-Azerbaijan relations please see, “US-Azerbaijan
Relations,” Speech by William J. Burns, US Under Secretary for Political
Affairs, delivered at Georgetown University, Washington, DC, September 19,
2009, http://www.state.gov/p/us/rm/2009a/129375.htm (accessed October 14,
2010).

[228]The Azerbaijani
government has requested a total investment of about US$ 1 billion from the
World Bank over the four year period 2011-2014 in various projects including
health, education, justice, and infrastructure. See Country Partnership
Strategy available at
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/AZERBAIJANEXTN/Resources/301913-1240322367644/6043695-1286995766829/7474932-1287411211104/full_report.pdf.
2011 will be the last year the country will receive concessional financing from
the World Bank as Azerbaijan’s per capita income of now places it in the
group of the middle income countries. The
ADB planned to invest $340 million in capital funds in 2011. See Country
Operations Business Plan (2011-2013)
http://www.adb.org/Documents/CPSs/AZE/2011-2013/cobp-aze-2011-2013.pdf. The EBRD planned to invest US$90 million in
2011 in 14 projects, most involving agribusiness and manufacturing. See
http://www.ebrd.com/downloads/research/factsheets/azerbaijan.pdf.

[230]The EBU is
tasked with “taking care of brand management, international marketing
activities, general communications and the official website.” Eurovision
Song Contest, “Organisers from the EBU,”
http://www.eurovision.tv/page/baku-2012/about/organisers/ebu (accessed October
26, 2011).

[231]The reference
group is tasked with “approving the development and future format of the
Eurovision Song Contest, securing the financing, modernising the brand and
raising awareness and overseeing the yearly preparation by the Host
Broadcaster.” Eurovision Song Contest, “Reference Group,”
http://www.eurovision.tv/page/baku-2012/about/organisers/reference-group
(accessed October 26, 2011).

[232]The Statutes of
the EBU establish that its purpose is to contribute, in the field of
broadcasting, to, inter alia, “safeguarding and improving freedom of
expression and information, which is one of the essential foundations of a
democratic society and one of the fundamental conditions for its progress and
for the development of every individual; [and] enhancing the freedom and pluralism
of the media, the free flow of information and ideas, and the free formation of
opinions.” As quoted in EBU, “Declaration on freedom of expression,
media independence and democracy,” July 2, 2010, footnote 1.
http://www.ebu.ch/CMSimages/en/Declaration_freedom_expression_2julydoc_tcm6-68197.pdf
(accessed October 26, 2011).

[233]EBU,
“Declaration on freedom of expression, media independence and
democracy.”

[236]Letter from
Ingrid Deltenre, Director General, European Broadcasting Union, to Human Rights
Watch, November 10, 2011. In May 2011, the government identified the existing
37,000-seat Tofiq Bahramov Stadium, or the much smaller Heydar Aliyev Sports
and Exhibition Complex as possible venues. “Azerbaijan Has Not Yet
Selected Site for Eurovision 2012,” May 19, 2011, Azerbaijan Business
Center, http://abc.az/eng/news/main/54292.html (accessed January 20, 2012). In
its November 2011 letter to Human Rights Watch, the EBU stated it would have
required a roof to be added to the Tofiq Bahramov football stadium.